Patent validity

This presents a fairly unique problem in the computer science field. IP rights are essentially national rights. They are only valid in the country in which they are granted or registered. A valid US patent is only valid in the United States, a Canadian copyright only valid in Canada. Even a so-called European patent is, in effect, a bundle of national patents valid in various European countries. This raises a problem in a situation in which, for example, the user of a computer program is in one country and the server is in another country. 

A generic drug is defined as a drug that is equivalent to a prescription drug approved by the FDA, but for which the patent validity has expired. An ANDA approval is required (Fig. 8.6). 

Id. at 391. See, also, John R. Allison Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA L.Q. 185 (1998). Allison and Lemley study the outcomes of patent validity cases from 1989 to 1996. They focus on those cases in which there exist final written decisions at either the district court or the Federal Circuit levels. In their smdy, a district court decision is finar if a later decision by the Federal Circuit does not supersede it. In their data set of 299 patents in 239 different cases, they find that 46 percent of the final decisions hold the relevant patent invalid. In contrast to this figure which covers aU patent validity decisions, they find that pharmaceutical patents are foimd invalid in 27 percent of cases. Allison and Lemley do not consider decisions that focus only on mlrrngement. 

Now that we have examined the important relationship between patent inventorship and initial ownership as well as the relationship between correct inventorship and patent validity, we can better appreciate the importance of determining inventorship correctly in the first place, so as to avoid any uncertainties that accompany a patent with improperly listed inventors. Unfortunately, inventorship determination is one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law it deigns to draw clear boundaries around subject matter that is often amorphous and subjective.24 Inventorship issues typically arise when joint inventorship is being considered and the question revolves around whether one or more individuals contributions qualify them as joint inventors.25... 

While little if any of what you work on in the patent arena is likely to be involved in litigation before a court, the assumption should still be made that it will because even short of litigation, the perceived validity of a patent is often the key determinant of whether a patent will actually be challenged in court. As a corollary, the value of a patent is often a function of its perceived validity, and as a result, many business deals involving patents are structured accordingly. Competent patent validity opinions prepared by patent counsel are based on legal reasoning primarily derived from federal patent case law precedence. 

IV) if before the expiration of such period the court grants a preliminary injunction prohibiting the applicant from engaging in the commercial manufacture or sale of the drug until the court decides the issues of patent validity and infringement and if the court decides that such patent has been infringed, the approval shall be made effective as provided in subclause (II). 

Duration Defined by the ownership interests of the deed - period of time can be very long or short Patents valid after issuance and run for 20 years from the filing date with some possibilities to extend... 

Before following the fortunes of the parties litigant in the Court of Appeals, let us consider a rather fundamental question which concerns patents and their interpretation. In arriving at its decision, the court considered the two fundamental questions which are present in every patent suit, unless one of them is conceded or waived by the defendant. These are (1) Is the patent valid, and (2) if valid, is it infringed As you will infer, the court decided both questions in the affirmative, although some claims were held to be invalid. 

Each country issues its own patents valid only in that country, so the same invention is usually patented in several countries. These patent duplications are known as equivalents. Equivalents may be filed in different languages, which can be useful if the original is in a language unfamiliar to the researcher. Abstracting services will generally abstract the first published application with a crossindex to their equivalents in other countries. 

A search is completed when the goal is attained. For example, when several excellent references, proving the invalidity of a patent, have been found in a validity search, the search is complete. Patent attorneys are reluctant to base a contest of patent validity on a single reference, as the Patent OflBce may disagree with them. However, beyond a certain point the piling up of evidence adds mere quantity, without altering the result. 

To illustrate, let us assume that a searcher reads that a chemical compoimd has a certain effect on a chromium catalyst. He cannot vouch for the scientific validity of this. However, he can say, assuming the statement to be true, that it has considerable, some, or little bearing on the search objectives. If his task is to locate information pertinent to patent validity, he may say, "This information may anticipate claim 5, U.S. patent. . . . Lawyers later may agree or disagree with his statement, but it has called their attention to the possible usefulness of the reference. Such highlighting is what is meant by saying the search abstract should be interpretive relative to the search objectives. 

Intellectual Property Attorney An attorney at law is someone licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. Only an attorney may provide legal advice. Questions of patent infringement or patent validity are examples of questions about which only a licensed attorney can provide an opinion. A patent attorney is an attorney licensed to practice law, as well as being registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to represent patent applicants before the USPTO. Registration to practice before the USPTO requires meeting certain requirements discussed below, which include passing an exam to test proficiency in patent law and rules of practice. 

The data of POE contains metadata MD(xi), independent claims lC(xi), de-pendent claims DC(xi), claim components CC(xi), component synonyms CS (xi), and key phrases KP(xi). The Microsoft Office Visio tool is used to build the patent ontology and is translated into standard XML in the IPDSS to analyze the patent context. The IPDSS then identifies potential patent infringement and evaluates patent validity. 

---