Essay Plan on Patent Law

Topic: The patent bargain and the doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure in product patents.

Personal motivation: There is a close link between the theory of inadequate disclosure and product patents, and I am curious to learn more about the patent bargain, a crucial notion in patent law. I aim to have a deeper understanding of patent law’s background and how it has changed through time to meet the demands of a dynamic economic and social environment.

Indicative essay structure:

Introduction

There is no other area of intellectual property law quite like patent law, which profoundly affects creativity and innovation. A basic element of patent law is the patent bargain, which grants innovators limited exclusivity in return for public disclosure of their innovations. This article investigates the connection between the patent bargain and the law of inadequacy of disclosure in product patents[1]. In this essay, we will examine the origins of the patent bargain, its rationale, and its connection to the theory of inadequacy of disclosure in product patents. The contradiction between the patent agreement and the theory of inadequate disclosure will also be analyzed critically, along with potential remedies to the problem.

Historical development and justification of the patent bargain

The modern doctrine of the patent bargain is intimately connected with the idea of disclosure, and this is not something that was at the forefront of the Statute of Monopolies. On the topic, see the article Patent Republic by Mario Biagioli(Read only pp. 1129-1140 and 1159-1161 and please focus on the following points:

  1. Can you explain the difference Biagioli draws between gifts and rights? How did the shift to rights relate to the development of patent bureaucracies?

Patent protection is among the strongest form of intellectual property protection. This is attributed to the exclusive use that the protection affords the patent holder once granted. However, prior to the issuance of patent protection, there is a procedure that ought to be followed by an applicant. Consequently, the process leading up to the issuance of patent protection is not as quick as the applicants would wish. Mario Biagioli analyses the various processes and the evolution of the steps that lead up to the patent protection.

 

Patents have evolved from gifts given by the sovereign to rights that give a patent holder exclusive use. In Colonial America, France, England, Spain, Italy, Russia and Germany when patents were issued in form of gifts, it was discretionary upon the sovereign being to decide whether to issue the gift or not.[2] Gifts refer to the historical practice of granting privileges to inventors as a form of recognition for their contributions to society. These privileges were not considered legal rights, but rather a form of gratitude for the inventor’s service.[3] In this sense, gifts were seen as a form of social recognition and honor, rather than a legal entitlement.

 

However, this has changed over time due to the development of intellectual property. This requires a person with an invention to demonstrate to the relevant authority the novelty, utility, non-obviousness and adequate disclosure of the subject matter of the invention.[4] Rights refer to a legal entitlement that an inventor has to control the use of their invention. The shift from gifts to rights occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries, with the development of patent laws that granted inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited period.[5] The idea behind granting these rights was to encourage innovation and the dissemination of knowledge by giving inventors a financial incentive to share their ideas with the public.

 

The shift from gifts to rights led to the rise of patent bureaucracies as there was need to create administrative bodies to deal with the patent system. These bureaucracies were responsible for reviewing patent applications, granting patents, and enforcing patent rights.[6] The development of these bureaucracies helped to formalize the idea of intellectual property as a legal right and established a system for enforcing these rights.

 

However, the growth of patent bureaucracies also had some unintended consequences. As the number of patent applications increased, the workload of patent offices grew, leading to delays and backlogs in the patent process. This, in turn, created opportunities for corruption and abuse, as some inventors sought to circumvent the system by bribing patent officials or filing frivolous patent applications.[7]

  1. Can you explain the idea of the patent bargain, and why it is often described as a ‘self-correcting scale’?

Patent bargain is a quid pro quo arrangement where the inventor discloses information regarding the invention to the state in order to receive patent protection.[8] The person seeking patent protection ought to disclose sufficient information to warrant protection by the state. The patent bargain is a concept in patent law that describes the trade-off between the inventor and society. The bargain is that the inventor is granted a limited monopoly over their invention in exchange for publicly disclosing their invention, which contributes to the public knowledge and advances the state of the art.[9]

 

The idea of the patent bargain is often described as a “self-correcting scale” because it is meant to balance the competing interests of the inventor and society.[10] On one hand, the inventor is incentivized to create new and useful inventions because they can benefit financially from the exclusive rights granted by the patent. On the other hand, society benefits from the disclosure of the invention, which allows others to build upon the invention and further advance the state of the art.

However, the patent bargain can also be seen as a self-correcting scale because it is meant to adjust to changing circumstances over time.[11] For example, as the field of technology advances and becomes more complex, the requirements for patentability may change to ensure that only truly innovative inventions are granted patents. Additionally, the duration of the patent monopoly may be adjusted to ensure that the balance between the inventor’s exclusive rights and the public’s access to the invention remains fair.

Patent bargain is seen as a dynamic and evolving concept that is meant to adapt to the changing needs and interests of both the inventor and society. The self-correcting nature of the patent bargain ensures that the balance between exclusivity and public access is maintained, and that the benefits of innovation are shared by all.

  1. Can you explain the shift from reduction to practice to enabling disclosure, as discussed by Biagioli? Looking at contemporary UK and EPO patents, can you explain how inventions are disclosed in a patent application?

In the history of patent law, there has been a shift from the requirement of “reduction to practice” to “enabling disclosure.” “Reduction to practice” refers to the requirement that a patent applicant must demonstrate that their invention has been fully realized and is capable of being produced in order to obtain a patent.[12] This requirement was meant to ensure that the invention was not purely theoretical but could actually be put into use.

 

However, this requirement was replaced with the requirement of “enabling disclosure,” which requires the patent applicant to disclose the invention in a way that is sufficient for someone skilled in the relevant field to be able to replicate it without undue experimentation.[13] This change was made to ensure that inventors could obtain a patent based on the strength of their ideas, even if they had not yet fully realized their invention.

In contemporary UK and EPO (European Patent Office) patents, inventions are typically disclosed in a patent application in several ways.[14] The application will typically include a description of the invention, which may include text, drawings, and diagrams. The description should provide enough detail to enable a person skilled in the relevant field to understand the invention and how it works. The application will also typically include one or more claims, which define the scope of the invention that is being claimed. These claims must be supported by the description and should be written in a way that is clear and unambiguous.

 

In addition to the description and claims, a patent application may also include experimental data or examples that demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of the invention.[15] This data can help to support the claims and provide evidence of the invention’s practical application. Overall, the goal of a patent application is to provide a complete and detailed description of the invention in a way that enables others to replicate it. This ensures that the patent system operates as intended by encouraging innovation and promoting the dissemination of knowledge.

 

  1. Can you explain the idea of the ‘infringement-validity dichotomy’ mentioned in the textbook?

The “infringement-validity dichotomy” is a concept in patent law that refers to the separation of issues related to patent infringement from those related to patent validity.[16] In other words, it is the idea that patent infringement and patent validity are separate issues that should be addressed independently of each other.

Patent infringement refers to the unauthorized use, manufacture, sale, or importation of a patented invention by someone other than the patent owner. In order to prove infringement, the patent owner must show that the accused product or process falls within the scope of the claims of the patent.[17]

Patent validity, on the other hand, refers to whether the patent is legally valid and enforceable. In order to be valid, a patent must meet certain requirements, such as novelty, non-obviousness, and utility.[18] If a patent is found to be invalid, it cannot be enforced and the patent owner cannot prevent others from using or selling the invention.

The infringement-validity dichotomy recognizes that patent infringement and patent validity are two distinct issues that require different types of evidence and legal analysis. For example, proving infringement may require a detailed comparison of the accused product or process to the claims of the patent, while proving validity may require evidence of prior art or expert testimony regarding the state of the art at the time of the invention.

Separating infringement and validity also serves to protect the interests of accused infringers, who may be subject to significant financial and legal penalties if found to be infringing a valid patent. By requiring separate analysis of infringement and validity, the legal system ensures that the validity of a patent is carefully scrutinized before it can be enforced against an accused infringer.

In summary, the infringement-validity dichotomy is the idea that patent infringement and patent validity are separate issues that should be addressed independently of each other. This ensures that the validity of a patent is carefully scrutinized before it can be enforced against an accused infringer.

  1. Can we say that the specification contributes to the identification of the boundaries of intellectual property? Does it, by itself, resolve the difficulties in identifying the scope of patent protection?

Further, on the issue of whether specification contributes to the identification of boundaries of intellectual property my answer is in the affirmative. It contains a detailed description of the invention and the specific claims that define the scope of the patent protection. The specification provides a detailed explanation of how the invention works, what it does, and how it is made or used. It also includes drawings and other figures that help to illustrate the invention. However, the specification alone may not always be sufficient to resolve the difficulties in identifying the scope of patent protection. In some cases, the claims of the patent may be vague or overly broad, which can make it difficult to determine the precise boundaries of the patent protection. Additionally, the scope of patent protection may be impacted by various legal doctrines and rules, such as the doctrine of equivalents or the scope of prior art.[19] These doctrines stipulate that a person may claim infringement where the product or process in question does not infringe on the patent but it performs the same function. For instance in Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Norton Healthcare [1996] RPC 76 (HL), the court held that the doctrine of equivalents was not part of the UK law of patent as infringement must fall within the exact scope of the product.

As a result, courts may need to rely on other evidence and legal analysis to determine the scope of patent protection. This may include analyzing the prior art, considering the language of the claims in light of the specification, and determining the meaning of specific terms and phrases used in the claims.[20]

In summary, while the specification in a patent application is an important source of information for identifying the boundaries of intellectual property, it may not be sufficient to fully resolve the difficulties in identifying the scope of patent protection. Other legal analysis and evidence may also be necessary to fully understand the scope of patent protection.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The Crown’s ability to favor monopoly grants was one of the main goals of the Statute of Monopolies, which intended to restrict the scope of monopoly grants. In return for making their ideas known to the public, the Act provided innovators with temporary patent protection.[21]This agreement was made to promote innovation by giving creators of new goods and processes a reason to put effort into their work. By assuring that the public could learn from and build upon the ideas detailed in patent applications, the patent system also attempted to encourage competition and technical development.

The relationship between the patent bargain and the doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure in product patents

Under the product patent theory of requirement of sufficiency of disclosure, a patent specification must disclose enough detail for a person versed in the art to replicate the invention. This means that the patentee must detail their invention sufficiently for a knowledgeable person to build upon it. There is a risk that the patent will be nullified if the specification does not match this condition.[22] When a patentee wants to claim a broad monopoly without providing a thorough description of the invention, they risk providing insufficient disclosure and breaking the terms of the patent contract. When a patentee secures an exclusive right without disclosing the information the public needs to replicate the innovation, this is an example of patent system abuse. This may lead to situations where the patentee has a monopoly over a specific field of technology, and no one else can utilize the idea, which can stifle competition and slow advancement.

The patent bargain is the underlying principle of the patent system, which grants inventors exclusive rights to their inventions in exchange for publicly disclosing the details of their inventions.[23] The doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure, on the other hand, is a legal principle that applies to product patents, requiring that a patent application must provide enough information about the invention to allow a person skilled in the relevant field to reproduce the invention without undue experimentation.

The relationship between the patent bargain and the doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure is that they are both aimed at promoting the public interest in innovation. The patent bargain ensures that inventions are publicly disclosed, which allows others to build on those ideas and advance the state of the art. The doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure, meanwhile, ensures that the disclosure is sufficiently detailed to enable others to actually use the invention.[24]

The doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure is particularly important in the context of product patents, where the invention is a product rather than a process. In product patents, it can be more difficult to provide sufficient disclosure because the invention may involve complex chemical structures or other technical details that are difficult to fully describe.[25]

If a patent fails to meet the requirements of the doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure, it may be invalidated or limited in scope. This can have significant implications for the patent holder, as it may limit their ability to enforce their patent rights or to monetize their invention.

Overall, the patent bargain and the doctrine of insufficiency of disclosure work together to promote innovation and ensure that the public benefits from the patent system. By requiring inventors to publicly disclose their inventions and provide sufficient information for others to build on those ideas, the patent system encourages the development of new technologies and products that benefit society as a whole.[26]

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

Limitations of the patent bargain and possible solutions

More emphasis on the need for complete and accurate disclosure in product patents is one approach to resolving the conflict between the patent bargain and the law of insufficiency of disclosure. Courts might establish a tighter standard (To ground this claim, you will need to explain the current approach and identify which particular element needs to be tightened.) for deciding whether the specification is adequate to allow a person skilled in the art (You will also need to explain this figure in your essay) to carry out the invention, and patent offices could demand more thorough explanations and examples of the invention[27]. The public would continue to reap the advantages of innovation disclosure, and the patent agreement would be preserved. The standard established by courts to determine whether a specification is adequate for an invention is known as the “enablement” or “written description” requirement. The level of specification requires that the specification of a patent application must be in such a manner that an ordinary person skilled in the relevant field can use the invention without experimentation. This position was reiterated in the case of Re Wands (Fed. Cir. 1988). Further, the courts have continuously held that the inventor need not provide each and every detail or variation of the invention.

Further, the court in Generics Ltd v Lundbeck A/S[28] stated that a patentee has a duty to give full disclosure of the product they wish to be pateneted and failure to do so may invalidate the patent protection for obviousness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the patent bargain is a cornerstone of patent law that stipulates that innovators are entitled to a limited monopoly in return for public disclosure of their innovations. In product patents, inadequate disclosure is a crucial tenet that guarantees the patentee discloses sufficient information for the public to replicate the invention. The patent system has successfully encouraged innovation and creativity, yet there is a conflict between the two principles that must be carefully considered. One way to resolve this conflict would be to increase the emphasis on thoroughness in product patents. How this conflict has been resolved in various countries, and its effects on innovation and creativity might be the subject of future study.

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

Allison, J. R., & Lemley, M. A. (2006). The (unnoticed) demise of the doctrine of equivalents. Stan. L. Rev., 59, 955.

Christopher J. Buccafusco and Jeanne C. Fromer, “Rethinking the Infringement-Validity Tradeoff: Lessons from Design Patent Theory” (2012) 90 Texas Law Review 1601.

Eva Hemmungs Wirtén, “In the Service of Secrecy: An Enveloped History of Priority, Proof and Patents” (2021) 26(3) Journal of Material Culture 241.

Generics Ltd v Lundbeck A/S [2009] RPC 13 (HL)

Ghosh, Shubha. “Patents and the regulatory state: rethinking the patent bargain metaphor after Eldred.” Berkeley Tech. LJ 19 (2004): 1315.

Golden, J. M., “Proliferating Patents and Patent Law’s Cost Disease.” (2013) Hous. L. Rev.51, 455.

Hemmungs Wirtén, E. (2021). In the service of secrecy: An enveloped history of priority, proof and patents. Journal of Material Culture26(3), 241-261.

Manual of Patent Practice, Intellectual Property Office.

Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Norton Healthcare [1996] RPC 76 (HL)

Merges, Robert P. “Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: the case of blocking patents.” Tenn. L. Rev. 62 (1994): 75.

Price, W., and I. I. Nicholson. “Expired Patents, Trade Secrets, and Stymied Competition.” Notre Dame L. Rev. 92 (2016): 1611.

Rebecca S. Eisenberg, “Rethinking the Patent Bargain” (2013) 63 Duke Law Journal 61.

Seymore, Sean B. “The teaching function of patents.” Notre Dame L. Rev. 85 (2009): 621.

Strandburg, K. J. (2004). What Does the Public Get-Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain. Wis. L. Rev., 81.

PLEASE INCLUDE FOLLOWING SOURCES IN ASSIGNMENT: –

include EPO decisions (particularly on novelty, and the exclusion of discoveries).

 

Another good resource are the examination manuals of both the

UKIPO: include EPO decisions (particularly on novelty, and the exclusion of discoveries).

 

 

Another good resource are the examination manuals of both the

UKIPO:

 

PATENTS: WHAT IS AN INVENTION?

Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2007] RPC 7 [para. 7 to 22]

Human Genome Sciences v Eli Lilly [2011] UKSC 51

Icos Corporation [2002] OJ EPO 293

Excluded subject matter: computer programs

 

Fujitsu Ltd’s Application [1996] RPC 511

Aerotel v Telco Holdings [2006] EWCA Civ 1371

Symbian v Comptroller-General of Patents [2008] EWCA Civ 1066

AT&T Knowledge Ventures and CVON Innovations v Comptroller General of Patents [2009] EWHC 343.

Gemstar v Virgin [2009] EWHC 3068 (Ch)

Microsoft/Clipboard formats I, T 0424/03 [2006]

 

 

Excluded subject matter: discoveries

 

Howard Florey/Relaxin, T74/91 [1995] EPOR 541

Genentech’s Patent [1989] RPC 147

Excluded subject matter: morality

Harvard/OncoMouse, T 19/90 [1990] EPOR 501 (TBA)

Novartis/Transgenic plant, G 1/98 [2000] EPOR 303 (EBA)

 

Harvard/Transgenic animals, T 315/03) [2006] OJ EPO 15

Novelty

 

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Norton Healthcare [1996] RPC 76 (HL)

Synthon BV v SmithKline Beecham [2006] RPC 10 (HL)

Mobil Oil/Friction Reducing additive G 2/88 [1990] EPOR 73

Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2004] UKHL 46.

Sufficiency of Disclosure

Generics Ltd v Lundbeck A/S [2009] RPC 13 (HL).

Biogen v. Medeva [1997] RPC 1.

 

Person skilled in the art (in general)

Rockwater Ltd v Technip France [2004] EWCA Civ 381

Lilly ICOS Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No.1) [2001] F.S.R. 16

Technip France SA’s Patent [2004] RPC 46

Inventive step

 

Windsurfing International Inc v Tabor Marine (Great Britain) Ltd. [1985] R.P.C. 59.

Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA [2007] FSR 37.

Brugger v Medic Aid [1996] RPC 635.

Actavis UK Ltd v Novartis AG [2010] FSR 18.

Person skilled in the art (inventive step)

 

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors Group [2009] EWCA Civ 1062.

Comvik/Two identities (T 641/00) [2003] OJ EPO 319.

Teva v Leo [2015] EWCA Civ 779.

Entitlement to grant

 

Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Ministry of Defence [1999] R.P.C. 442

IDA v University of Southampton [2006] EWCA Civ 145

Harris’s Patent [1985] RPC 19

Staeng Limited’s Patents [1996] R.P.C. 183

Catnic v Hill [1982] RPC 183

Improver v Remington [1990] FSR 181

Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals [1999] RPC 253

Wheatley & Arnor v Drillsafe & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 209

Kirin-Amgen Inc. v Hoechst Marion [2004] UKHL 46

Activis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co [2017] UKSC 48

Ralf Sieckmann contra Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C273/00) [2003] R.P.C. 38

Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-104/01) [2003] ECR I-3793; [2004] FSR 4

Nestlé v. Cadbury UK [2013] EWCA Civ 1174.

Limitations for shapes and other characteristics

Koninklijke Philips Electronics v Remington Consumer Products [2002] ECR 1-5475

Lego Juris v OHIM, Mega Brands (C-48/09) [2010] ETMR 63

Hauck GmbH v Stokke(C-05/13) [2014]

Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV (C-163/16) [2018]

Absolute distinctiveness

 

Procter & Gamble v OHIM (‘BABY-DRY’) [1999] ECR II-2383

OHIM v Wrigley (Doublemint) [2003] ECR I-12447

Nestlé Waters France v OHIM T305/02 [2003] ECR II-5207

Bongrain’s Application [2005] RPC (14) 306 (CA)

 

Acquired distinctiveness

Windsurfing Chiemsee (Case C-109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779

Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 358

Marks contrary to public policy and morality

Re Ghazilian’s Trade Mark Application [2001] RPC 654.

Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v EUIPO, Case C-240/18 P [2020]

Identity/similarity of signs

Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport, C-251/95 [1997]
LTJ Diffusion v Sadas Vertbaudet C-291/00 (2003)
Websphere Trade Mark [2004] FSR (39) 796
Portokabin Ltd  v Primakabin BV, C-558/08 [2010] ECR I-6963

Identity/similarity of goods and services

 

AAH Pharmaceuticals v Vantagemax [2003] E.T.M.R. 18
Canon C-39/97 [1998]
El Corte Ingles T-443/05 [2007]
Balmoral Trade Mark [1999] RPC 297

 

 

The average consumer

 

Linde AG, Winward Industries, Rado Watch Co., Joined cases C-53/01, C-54/01, C-55/01 [2003]).

Lloyd Schuhfabrik, C-342/97 [1999]

Procter & Gamble v OHIM, Cases C 486/01P to C-472/01P [2004] ECR I-5141.

Non-origin functions/Extended protection

 

Sigla SA v. OHIM T-215/03 [2007]
L’Oréal v Bellure [2007] EWCA Civ 968.
Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants PLC [1995] FSR 713.
Arsenal v Reed [2003] RPC 39.
General Motors Corporation v Yplon,  Case C-375/97 [1999] ECR I-05421

General approach to infringement

Specsavers International Healthcare v. Asda Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 24

Sazerac Brands v. Liverpool Gin Distillery [2020] EWHC 2424 (Ch)

Uses ‘in the course of trade’

 

Arsenal v. Reed, Case C-206/01 [2002]

L’Oréal v. eBay International, Case C-324/09 [2011]

A v. B, Case C-772/18 [2020]

Use as a trade mark

BMW v. Deenik, Case C-63/97 [1999]

Hölterhoff v. Freiesleben, Case C-2/00 [2002]

Adam Opel v. Autec, Case C-48/05 [2007]

L’Oréal v. Bellure, Case C-487/07 [2009]

Google France v. Louis Vuitton, Cases C-236/08–238/08 [2010]

Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, Case C-323/09 [2011], [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch)

Supreme Petfoods v. Henry Bell (Grantham) [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch)

Frank Industries v. Nike Retail [2018] EWHC 1893 (Ch)

 

[1] Seymore, Sean B. “The teaching function of patents.” Notre Dame L. Rev. 85 (2009): 621.

[2] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

[3] Ibid

[4] Eva Hemmungs Wirtén, “In the Service of Secrecy: An Enveloped History of Priority, Proof and Patents” (2021) 26(3) Journal of Material Culture 241.

[5] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

[6] Golden, J. M., “Proliferating Patents and Patent Law’s Cost Disease.” (2013) Hous. L. Rev.51, 455.

[7] Eva Hemmungs Wirtén, “In the Service of Secrecy: An Enveloped History of Priority, Proof and Patents” (2021) 26(3) Journal of Material Culture 241.

[8] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

 

[9] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129.

[10] Strandburg, K. J. (2004). What Does the Public Get-Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain. Wis. L. Rev., 81.

[11] Ibid

[12] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129.

[13] Rebecca S. Eisenberg, “Rethinking the Patent Bargain” (2013) 63 Duke Law Journal 61.

[14] Manual of Patent Practice, Intellectual Property Office.

[15] Manual of Patent Practice, Intellectual Property Office.

[16] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129.

[17] Christopher J. Buccafusco and Jeanne C. Fromer, “Rethinking the Infringement-Validity Tradeoff: Lessons from Design Patent Theory” (2012) 90 Texas Law Review 1601.

[18] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129.

[19] Allison, J. R., & Lemley, M. A. (2006). The (unnoticed) demise of the doctrine of equivalents. Stan. L. Rev., 59, 955.

[20] Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Norton Healthcare [1996] RPC 76 (HL)

[21] Ghosh, Shubha. “Patents and the regulatory state: rethinking the patent bargain metaphor after Eldred.” Berkeley Tech. LJ 19 (2004): 1315.

[22] Merges, Robert P. “Intellectual property rights and bargaining breakdown: the case of blocking patents.” Tenn. L. Rev. 62 (1994): 75.

[23] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

 

[24] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

[25] Rebecca S. Eisenberg, “Rethinking the Patent Bargain” (2013) 63 Duke Law Journal 61

[26] Mario Biagioli, “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors” (2006) 73(4) Social Research: An International Quarterly 1129

[27] Price, W., and I. I. Nicholson. “Expired Patents, Trade Secrets, and Stymied Competition.” Notre Dame L. Rev. 92 (2016): 1611.

[28] [2009] RPC 13 (HL)

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

 

 

Verified by MonsterInsights