Category: Patents & Technology

By: James W. Soong For the patent owner, early provision of patent notice can help maximize recoverable infringement damages during subsequent litigation. This iBrief recognizes a growing trend of infringement suits predicated on patented enterprise software technology, and analyzes application of patent notice principles against industry convention. This iBrief examines the licensing paradigm of enterprise software and questions whether mechanical compliance with the marking statute should qualify as constructive notice. Borrowing from analogous Federal Circuit principles, this iBrief concludes by proposing alternate notice theories that would empower patentees to seek increased remedies consistent with industry reality, case law, and fundamental statutory purpose. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0002

By: Andrew Wasson If even a fraction of the predictions about nanotechnology are realized, our society will be a dramatically different and better place than it is today. Yet, due to the infancy of the field, it is still unclear how traditional patent doctrine will be applied to nanotechnology. As it stands, the creators of nanoscale versions of traditional products might face infringement claims from traditional patent holders. The reverse doctrine of equivalents serves as a possible mechanism to equitably excuse the literal infringement of traditional patents by nanotech inventors in a way that encourages the progress of science. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0010

By: Lewis Branscomb On February 19, 2004, Dr. Lewis Branscomb gave the Meredith and Kip Frey Lecture in Intellectual Property at Duke Law School. In his speech, Dr. Branscomb discussed various models for turning basic scientific inventions into high-tech innovations and highlighted the roles that universities, private investors, and intellectual property law play in each model. Dr. Branscomb concluded that this intermediary process is the most important step in getting high-tech innovations to market. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0005

By: Jennifer F. Miller A debate has arisen within the legal community over the existence and constitutionality of a so-called “complexity exception” to the Seventh Amendment. This exception would give a judge the discretion to deny a jury trial in a civil case if he or she feels that the issue is too complex for a jury to decide properly. This iBrief discusses the constitutionality of the complexity exception and the arguments for and against its implementation, with particular emphasis on the application of the exception to patent infringement cases. The iBrief then postulates that, while a blanket exception for patent infringement cases may not be the solution, at a minimum some restructuring of the adjudication process needs to occur in order to ensure that judicial holdings are more than a mere roll of the dice. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0004

By: Campbell Chiang The Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining when an invention is “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. For the on-sale bar to be triggered, the invention must be “ready for patenting” and subject of a “commercial offer for sale.” In Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v. Chemque, Inc., the Federal Circuit expounded on what constitutes a commercial offer for sale. This iBrief explores what is considered a “commercial offer for sale.” Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2004 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0001

By: Campbell Chiang The Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining when an invention is “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. For the on-sale bar to be triggered, the invention must be “ready for patenting” and subject of a “commercial offer for sale.” In Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v. Chemque, Inc., the Federal Circuit expounded on what constitutes a commercial offer for sale. This iBrief explores what is considered a “commercial offer for sale.” Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0035

By: Andrew Joseph Hollander Courts view “data structures,” the mechanism by which computers store data in meaningful relationships, differently than do computer scientists. While computer scientists recognize that data structures have aspects that are both physical (how they are stored in memory) and logical (the relationships among the stored information), the Federal Circuit, in its attempts to set clear standards of the scope of patentability of data structures, has not fully appreciated their dualistic nature. This i-brief explains what data structures are, explores how courts have wrestled with setting a limiting principle to determine their patentability, and discusses the resultant impact on claim drafting. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0033

By: Troy Petersen With the ever-increasing international flavor of business comes an important question for United States patent holders and foreign manufacturers alike: Can a company be held liable for patent infringement in the United States for selling an infringing product abroad that is later imported into the United States? Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0032

By: Jennifer F. Miller In Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine when an invention is “on sale” for purposes of Title 35 U.S.C. §102(b). In addition to being the subject of a commercial offer for sale, an invention must be “ready for patenting” in order to be considered “on sale.” Since Pfaff, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had numerous opportunities to expound upon how inventors can fulfill the latter condition. This iBrief will discuss the factors the Federal Circuit has determined are indicative of an invention’s “ready for patenting” status. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0030

By: Ben Quarmby With the advent of protein engineering, the determination of a protein’s 3D structure has taken on a whole new importance. This has prompted some to call for the United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] to break with tradition and allow patents on the three-dimensional structural information of proteins. This iBrief will discuss whether such information would constitute patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, and how much protection patents on this information could actually confer. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0029