US Supreme Court Poised To Rule Human Genes Are Not Patentable 21/12/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments For decades, the United States has pioneered the patenting of human genes, and other countries have followed this lead. But the US will soon perform an abrupt about-face, most experts predict. When the US Supreme Court hands down its decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the justices appear likely to rule that human genes are not patentable subject matter. And the ruling may go even farther, holding that other forms of human DNA are not patentable.
Overseas Manufacturing Creates Copyright Dilemma For US Supreme Court 21/11/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons presents the United States Supreme Court with a stark and weighty choice. In the 29 October oral argument [pdf], Supap Kirtsaeng urged the court to uphold purchasers’ right to freely dispose of copyrighted works they have purchased, even when those works are made overseas. If this right is struck down, Kirtsaeng warned, museums in the US may be unable to borrow works of art created overseas, consumers may be unable to sell their used books and CDs, and many companies engaged in secondary markets, such as eBay and used car dealers, may be put out of business.
New USPTO Post-Grant Review A Small Step For Patent Harmonisation 18/10/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment On 16 September, the United States made its patent system more like everyone else’s. The country began implementing a new patent office procedure for challenging the validity of recently issued patents. This was, however, only a modest step towards harmonisation because the US version of post-grant patent review has little in common with the corresponding processes available in other countries, according to experts.
US And UN Consider New Limits On Patent Wars 20/09/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The patent wars have produced many casualties around the world. Companies that make and sell smartphones and tablet computers, courts, consumers and the economy – all have suffered, according to many experts. “I couldn’t come up with a worse system” for handling patent disputes, said Erich Spangenberg, chairman of IP Navigation Group, a consultancy. But significant reforms may be on the way, thanks to the US government and a United Nations agency.
Innovation And The Law: Some Lessons From The Patent Wars 27/07/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments They’ve been at each other’s throats for three years, and there’s no end in sight. Over two dozen businesses involved with smartphones and tablet computers are suing one another for patent infringement in numerous lawsuits around the world. These patent wars have cost the companies billions of dollars, clogged the courts, and prevented consumers from buying some devices they want with features they prefer. Is this really the best way to promote innovation and competition?
A Bigger, Meaner Patent War 25/06/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment It’s been called a patent war, and it’s raging over much of the globe. In at least ten countries – including the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and South Korea – Apple is locked in ferocious legal battles against Google, Samsung and HTC over whose smartphones and tablets infringe whose patents. There’s a lot a stake: Damages could run into billions of dollars. Even worse, the loser could wind up being forbidden to sell its products in various markets. This costly, high-stakes global patent war may seem unprecedented. But according to many experts, that’s only partly true. In many ways, this patent war is similar to major patent disputes in the past. And it is likely a foretaste of more patent wars in the future.
Viacom v. YouTube: Chipping Away At The DMCA 03/05/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment It was a major legal battle between copyright owners and online businesses. Then, on 5 April, online businesses won. Mostly. The US appellate court ruling in Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. basically upheld the legal protection that a key US statute grants to online firms. However, the ruling also opened several holes in that protection.
US Supreme Court Edges Toward Reviewing Extent Of GMO Patents 13/04/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment It’s unclear if the US Supreme Court wants to address yet another controversial issue in patent law, but on 2 April, the court took a small step in that direction. That’s when the court formally asked the US Justice Department to opine on whether the high court should grant certiorari in Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
After Mayo, Is Patent Law More Restrictive In US Than Europe? 05/04/2012 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment The United States is known for taking an unusually expansive approach towards patentable subject matter. Compared with Western Europe, for instance, the US has been far readier to grant patents on business methods, medical diagnostic processes, and human genes.
US Supreme Court Narrows Patentable Subject Matter 21/03/2012 by Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments On 20 March, the US Supreme Court cut back on the types of inventions that can be patented in America. The court held in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. that one cannot patent an invention which merely applies known technology to natural phenomena.