8353 research outputs found
Sort by
AI Patents: A Data Driven Approach
Get PDFWhile artificial intelligence (AI) research brings challenges, the resulting systems are no accident. In fact, academics, researchers, and industry professionals have been developing AI systems since the early 1900s. AI is a field uniquely positioned at the intersection of several scientific disciplines including computer science, applied mathematics, and neuroscience. The AI design process is meticulous, deliberate, and time-consuming – involving intensive mathematical theory, data processing, and computer programming. All the while, AI’s economic value is accelerating. As such, protecting the intellectual property (IP) springing from this work is a keystone for technology firms acting in competitive markets
The Eleventh Auer: The Effect of Kisor v. Wilkie On Rulemaking and Adjudication at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Get PDFCourts have long deferred to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous rule or statute, in light of the agency’s relevant technical expertise. But some judges prefer that Article III courts review everything; and deferring often involves relying on an agency’s interpretation of a genuinely ambiguous statute—the oft-discussed Chevron deference doctrine. This Article analyzes the more nuanced Auer deference, where a court defers to an agency’s later interpretation of its own ambiguous rule or regulation. Recently, the Supreme Court took and decided Kisor v. Wilkie, which dramatically modified the Auer doctrine. While Kisor appealed a claim for veteran’s benefits that implicated the courts’ ability to review Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) findings, the Court took it up to answer a bigger question: Should Auer be overruled
The Complicated Relationship of Patent Examination and Invalidation
No full textThe conventional view is that the Patent Office examines patent applications before issuance to assure compliance with the statutory criteria of patentability. Ex post invalidation in district court litigation or Patent Office cancellation proceedings then reviews the Patent Office’s work to correct errors that result from the Patent Office’s shortcomings, bias, or “rational ignorance” that limits resources spent on examination because of the irrelevance of most patents. Scholars, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court have all endorsed this conventional view. However, it is wrong—or at least overly simplistic. The American patent system is only partially a system of ex ante patent examination. In other respects, it functions as a registration system where significant aspects of patentability determinations are left entirely to ex post patent invalidation in litigation and administrative proceedings. Even if the Patent Office was allocated greater resources and its examiners performed their assigned tasks perfectly, full evaluation of patentability would be impossible due to structural features of examination that exclude certain categories of prior art, prevent evaluation of the full extent of the patent owner’s exclusive rights, and allow only a snapshot evaluation of a patentability question that changes over time. Given that parts of the patentability evaluation are structurally impossible in examination, the role of ex post invalidation is more nuanced than traditionally described. In some instances, it performs a review function to correct errors in the Patent Office’s examination. In other instances, however, it serves an examination function to provide a first-instance evaluation of the aspects of patentability which are structurally unsuited for ex ante examination. Yet, the design of the patent system does not reflect the structural limits of examination or varied roles of ex post invalidation. A proper understanding of patent examination and invalidation sheds light on current debates over the presumption of validity, administrative patent cancellation, and the role of ex ante examination
The Regulatory Accoutability Act Loses Steam but the Trump Executive Order on ALJ Selection Upturned 71 years of practice
Get PDF
Cost-Benefit Analysis Under Trump: A commen on Dan Farber\u27s Regulatory Review in Anti-Regulatory Times
Get PDFEmpirical Inheritance Law
No full textEmpirical legal scholars tell it like it is. The nature of the “it” that we might want to know about varies significantly by legal field, however, and it also differs based on one’s scholarly position within that field. This Comment explores the major ways that empirical legal scholarship can be valuable to those of us working on normative or theoretical legal scholarship in inheritance law
Perfecting U.S. Patentable Subject Matter - Merging the European Approach and the American Principles
Get PDFThis article illuminates the recent developments in the field of the subject matter eligibility of the inventions and offers a resolution to the crucial issues in the field. The solution for resolving of the crucial issues combines the current U.S. approach of affirmative defining of the scope of the subject matter of the patents and the approach of the European Patent Convention, of both affirmative and negative defining of the patentable subject matter. In particular, the article provides a draft legislation as a more sustainable and precise solution that emerged from the comparison between the experience of the participants in the U.S. patent prosecution and litigation procedure and the experience of the participants in the patent procedure in the European Patent Organization. The legislative proposal includes the current text of Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act enhanced with a new part concerning the excluded invention matter from the scope of the patentable subject matter. Several court decisions involving patentable subject matter eligibility of inventions in the field of business methods, software and life sciences, make this approach necessary and the resolution of the overall problem pressing. Also, the article critiques the proposed amendment of Section 101 of the Patent Act currently being considered in the U.S. Congress and explains how the proposed draft legislation in the paper offers a better solution