Violations patent

Richard Koehn I do not think the universities have any idea how intellectual property laws relate to the general research mission of the institution or its desire to exploit the fruits of that research through commercialization. It is completely different when you are doing research in chemistry on a particular area and you see some particular applications in mind, but you are actually utilizing patented procedures or processes in that research. Have you violated the patent The question of a patent violation in research laboratories is extremely sophisticated, and most technology transfer offices at universities do not know that the issue exists or how to think about it. Now that the universities are thinking about exploiting the commercial value of a project, they need to ask what process was used to produce the fruits of that project. That is a different level of sophistication. 

One issue being considered in Congress is that public universities currently cannot be litigated against for certain kinds of patent violations because they are public institutions. There was a proposal to change that. 

The information presented here and selected from patents is that which, in the opinion of the author, is the basic work done, showing the progress in technology. The review is not and cannot be complete. The reason is that know-how concerning poly(ester-imide)s is filed in patents having different classifications, and is difficult to retrieve (e.g. if it is filed in a patent having as the main claim the processing machine). Another reason is that particular company know-how never was patent protected because patent violation could not be proved, and the know-how was better kept secret. 

For instance, you could ask a recruiter at a law firm "I read recently that your firm is involved in a major lawsuif regarding patent violations. Tm very interested in intellectual property law. Is this something... 

Falsified medicines (the term falsified is used to distinguish the issue from patent violations, so-called counterfeits ) are a major threat to public health and safety [14]. 

When evaluating an issued patent for purposes of determining the patentabiUty of a new invention, the entire patent must be considered. As a result, the figures, K, and The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment, Q, are every bit as important to an issued patent as the claims, S. At certain times any one of these elements may become more relevant than another. For example, claims tend to be more relevant to deterrninations of patent infringement or violation. However, in deterrninations concerning the patentabiUty of new inventions, the figures, K, and The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment, Q, may be the most relevant aspects of any previous patent. 

Q. Along with the other defendants, you have been charged with attempting to adjust "world economy," too. . . with weakening the United States by violating agreements to turn over workable patents to Standard Oil. 

While it is a tempting practice because of the obvious commercial gain, if a supplier holds a patent covering the use of Compound A, for him to insist that Compound A should be bought from him to get a license, he should avoid this practice because it constitutes a misuse. Such practice may also involve an antitrust violation in certain situations. 

In recent years it has become very risky practice for a patent owner to license a patent, knowing the patent has serious defects which would lead him to believe it is not valid. Serious anti-trust violations may occur in licensing a patent which the patent owner... 

Although the applicant is free to amend the claims in the patent application during the prosecution of the patent application, he cannot rewrite the claims in any way he pleases. Rather the claims must be fully supported by the text of the patent application as filed any attempt to add matter in the claims that is not supported by the patent application as filed will draw what is often referred to as a new matter rejection, meaning that the applicant has attempted to introduce new matter to the patent application that was not present as originally filed. An attempt to introduce new matter into the claims during the patent prosecution process violates the written description requirement and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9. 

The pharmaceutical industry was very pleased with the actions of the ustr, but decided to pursue the matter further. In February 1998, the consortium of 40 drug companies, led by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa, filed a suit. Its key legal claim was that the statute, the Medicines Amendment Act of 1997, was in violation of South African obligations under trips. It was also claimed that the statute was unconstitutional because it gave sweeping power to South Africa s health minister to override the country s patent laws (Kongolo, 2001). For its part, the South African government promised to defend the Medicines Act, which could not be implemented because of the lawsuit. 

With the patent on its blockbuster allergy medicine Claritin set to expire in December 2002, Schering-Plough sued potential generics makers, claiming that they would violate a separate patent on the chemical compound (or metabolite) that is produced in the liver when the pill is swallowed. 

About to lose patent protection on Prilosec, AstraZeneca played for more time by contending that generics would violate its patent, not on the drug itself, but on the process for making the drug. 

Released in 1993 to excellent sales (and a lawsuit for patent infringement), DOS 6.0 offered a number of new commands and configurable options. Another enhancement in DOS 6.0 was EMM386.EXE, which allowed the system to pool extended and expanded memory. DOS 6.0 has subsequently been revised a number of times—once (DOS 6.2 to 6.21) because of a court order. Microsoft was found to have violated Stac Electronics patent rights in the creation of the DoubleSpace utility for 6.0 and 6.1, and the only real difference between 6.2 and 6.21 is that DoubleSpace is removed. Never to be denied, Microsoft soon released DOS 6.22 with a disk compression program called DriveSpace. 

When the best mode requirement is not violated by maintaining a trade secret, a trade secret can coexist with a patent in a single area of technology. In general, however, a trade secret is an alternative to patent protection. 

Commission (SEC), and state Blue Sky laws, present even more difficult problems. Public offerings, when possible, should be delayed until patent applications are filed because public disclosure, even if accidental or in violation of a confidentiality agreement, can preclude patent protection in most countries of the world. Once again, there is great pressure for filing patent applications as quickly as possible. 

---