Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle

Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?

Rethinking Standing in Intellectual Property Challenges

(Mostly) against Exceptionalism

Congress created the Federal Circuit as a specialized appellate court with the goals of fostering uniformity in outcomes, coherent evolution of patent law doctrine and policy, and the development of judicial expertise and competency. However, the creation of this specialized appellate court has had a downside. Because the Federal Circuit has narrow jurisdiction and hears a relatively restricted range of cases, it is much less likely to look at traditional common law doctrines across numerous dimensions, as would the regional courts of appeal with broader jurisdiction. As a result, its decisions can misconstrue those traditional principles in applying them to the unique and complex patent law issues before the court. This article examines this phenomenon in the context of multi-actor patent infringement, which encompasses the sub-categories of joint and divided patent infringement. The Federal Circuit has used imprecise vocabulary to articulate increasingly narrow bases of liability for multi-actor infringement. Returning explicitly and openly to the foundations of the tort and agency law doctrines that traditionally underlie multi-actor infringement doctrine would enable the Federal Circuit to articulate liability rules that are more principled, more grounded in traditional legal doctrine, and more consistent with the overall patent law scheme. Although such an approach will not resolve all multi-actor patent infringement cases, it will help isolate the subset of cases not susceptible to easy resolution under current precedent and doctrine, thus highlighting the areas in need of congressional intervention.

Taming the Mongrel: Aligning Appellate Review of Claim Construction with its Evidentiary Character in Teva v. Sandoz

Claim Construction, Appeal, and the Predictability of Interpretive Regimes

本文旨在探討美國專利法上商業方法發明專利適格性之相關爭議。美國專利審查及司法實務就商業方法發明之專利適格性，迭有爭論。此議題於2008年In re Bilski 判決暨其後2010年Bilski v. Kappos再次受矚。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於前者判決中雖未否定「商業方法發明」之專利適格，惟認應以「機械或轉換判斷標準」作為商業方法發明專利適格性之審查依據。案經上訴聯邦最高法院，聯邦最高法院除重申並非所有商業方法發明均不真專利適格之立場，並指出前開「機械或轉換審查標准」並非判斷「商業方法發明」專利適格的唯一標準。雖此，聯邦最高法院並未進一步於判決中提出具體的審查標準，日後商業方法發明專利適格性之判斷，仍留有解釋空間。經分析前述二則判決（含「多數意見」及「協同意見」）及其他相關司法實務、評論意見後，本文認為聯邦最高法院雖於Bilski判決中否定「所有商業方法發明均不具專利適格」之主張，惟此立場未來到非無變動可能。又， 聯邦最高法院在本案中仍未建立審查商業方法發明專利適格性的明確標準，致實務上爭議頻仍，此部分應循立法方式解決為宜。另本案判決後，美國專利審查實務與聯邦巡迴上訴法院仍繼續適用此機械或轉換判斷標準於商業方法發明， 甚至擴及適用於其他方法發明之專利適格判斷，未來如貫徹此標準，則凡未涉及「特定機械」或「具體有形轉換」之「純粹」方法發明，恐難於美國獲准專利。就此標準之內涵而言，本文則認為其仍有不明之處，猶待近一步「細緻化」、「具體化」各該要件之內涵。此外，經本文比較我國專利實務對於「商業方法發明」之立場，我國專利實務雖於「商業方法發明與電腦軟體技術結合」範圍內肯認「商業方法發明」之專利適格，惟此立場是否過於侷限，仍有討論空間。又，美國專利實務現正積極努力建立各類方法發明之專利適格審查標準，其未來發展趨勢如何，自當密切觀察。

The Federal Circuit's <i>VirnetX</i> Ruling Continues Focus on Requirements for Proving Patent Damages

Experts, Generalists, Laypeople -- and the Federal Circuit

Brief Amici Curiae of Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petitioners

'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' and Appellate Review

Despite the importance of patent rights and the prevalence of patent infringement claims in spine surgery, no study to date has comprehensively assessed this topic. Therefore we investigated patent infringement claims in the United States within the field of spine surgery. We also provide neurosurgeons with a basic knowledge of patent law. A retrospective review of legal cases published on the legal databases Westlaw and LexisNexis was conducted without time constraints. Patent infringement cases in spine surgery involving medical device companies were included. Criminal cases, other intellectual property cases (eg, copyrights, trademarks), and patent-related litigation not explicitly involving infringement claims (eg, royalties disputes) were excluded. Case characteristics included verdict outcomes, party demographics, case location, case year, type of spinal device involved (eg, surgical implant), type of patent infringement, and legal outcome. Comparisons between plaintiff and defendant verdicts were performed using independent samples t -test or χ 2 test. Of the initial 468 screened cases, 35 met the final inclusion criteria. Cases ranged from 1996 to 2021. Verdict outcomes were split evenly between plaintiffs (49%) and defendants (51%), with most cases involving disputes about surgical implants (n = 25, 71%) between medical device companies (n=29, 83%). Among the 35 cases, there were a total of 55 patent infringement claims, with 35 direct, 8 indirect, and 12 willful infringement claims. Among the 6 (out of 17) plaintiff verdicts reporting monetary damages, the median, inflation-adjusted award payout was $28899596 ($2 833 870-$202626170). There were no significant differences in case characteristics, infringement subtypes, or award outcomes between plaintiffs and defendants' verdict decisions. In addition to serving as a primer in patent law for neurosurgeons, our empirical analysis provides valuable insights into the complex legal environment surrounding technological innovation and intellectual property rights in spine surgery in the United States.

Reconsidering Cybor: A Hybrid Standard of Appellate Review of Patent Claim Construction Rulings

The Federal Circuit and the D.C. Circuit: Comparative Trials of Two Semi-Specialized Courts

ONS and Intellectual Property