March 2016
Regulation;Spring2016, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p14
Academic Journal
The article discusses the limitations of the paper "The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls," by James Bessen, Jennifer Ford and Michael Meurer. It cites the paper's implication that patent owners who license their intellectual property (IP) are evil. Topics covered include the attack of the U.S. government on IP holders, the assessment of the economic effects of patent lawsuits by non-practicing entities (NPEs) and the failure to cover all components of each patent litigation event.


Related Articles

  • A TWIST OF TECHNOLOGY. Le Mesurier, Kristen // BRW;7/28/2005, Vol. 27 Issue 29, p18 

    Focuses on the implication of Steven John Grant versus the Commissioner of Patents on the protection of business systems in Australia. Details of the lawsuit; Plans of the Federal Court to increase the number of business systems that can be patented; Solicitation of patent protection for a...

  • EDITOR'S COLUMN. Guaragna, John M. // Venulex Legal Summaries;2012 Q2, Special section p02 

    An overview of the articles related to intellectual property (IP) published within the issue of the magazine is presented, including best practices in dealing with IP crimes, the new landscape in patent damages law, and observations on the impact of the American Invents Act's joinder provision...

  • Ghost of the Past: Does the USPTO's Scientific and Technical Background Requirements Still Make Sense? Blake, Corey B. // Texas Law Review;Feb2004, Vol. 82 Issue 3, p735 

    Discusses a proposal to broaden or eliminate technical background requirement for patent prosecutors in the U.S. Background on the patent law; Ways to reform the technical background requirement; Effects of the reform on patent cost, quality and members of the patent bar.

  • FOREWORD. Thompson, Mazelle W.; DeSanti, Susan Stark // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;Summer2004, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p857 

    Given the limits on Patent Office scrutiny of patent applications, one might hope that ex post litigation can fix at least the important errors. Unfortunately, the often grossly skewed incentives to challenge and to defend issued patents make this view too optimistic. Since litigation cannot fix...

  • A Patent Doctrine without Bounds: The "Extended" Written Description Requirement. Whitley, Guang Ming // University of Chicago Law Review;Spring2004, Vol. 71 Issue 2, p617 

    The article presents information on the patent doctrine in the United States. Valid patents must fulfill: "written description" and "enablement." Traditionally, the written description requirement served as a priority policing doctrine, preventing patent applicants from improperly amending...

  • Efficient Uncertainty in Patent Interpretation. Surden, Harry // Washington & Lee Law Review;Winter2011, Vol. 68 Issue 4, p1737 

    Research suggests that widespread uncertainty over the scopes of issued patents creates significant costs for third-party firms and may decrease innovation. This Article addresses the scope uncertainty issue from a theoretical perspective by creating a model of patent claim scope uncertainty. It...

  • Patent Plaintiff Perils. Campbell, Cathryn // Bio-IT World;Jun2004, Vol. 3 Issue 6, p92 

    Cautions U.S. biotechnology companies regarding the risks associated with patent infringement lawsuits. Impact of a patent lawsuit on a patent holder; Factors that a patent holder should consider before filing a lawsuit against a patent infringer; Benefit provided by an issued patent in the U.S.

  • A patently unified Europe. England, Paul // Lawyer 2B;Winter2013, p9 

    The article discusses the Unified Patent Court (UPC) agreement and Unitary Patent in Europe. It reports on how the agreement would lead to several radical change to the system of litigating patents. It is informed that a single Unitary Patent will provide its holder with exclusivity protection...

  • The Ghost Is the Machine: Protection of Process Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). Bradley, Keith // Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal;Fall2006, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p123 

    The article discusses the protection of process patents under 35 U.S. Code § 271(f). It also reviews the history of § 271(f), focusing on four cases that were not covered by the section as declared by the Federal Circuit. The paper then introduces the concepts of category-neutral and...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics