DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Reform, Then and Now

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Reform, Then and Now View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Southern Methodist University PATENT REFORM, THEN AND NOW David O. Taylor* 2019 MICH. ST. L. REV. 431 ABSTRACT One of the most significant legislative reforms of the U.S. patent system occurred in 1952. Prior to 1952, the patent system found itself languishing, undermined by a confusing nonstatutory patentability requirement called the “invention” requirement. In 1952, Congress and the President eliminated it. Today we find ourselves in a situation surprisingly similar to the one prior to 1952. The patent system again finds itself languishing, undermined by a new confusing nonstatutory patentability requirement, this one called the “inventive concept” requirement. Today, just like in 1952, there are ongoing calls for Congress and the President to eliminate it. Given the striking parallels between these two eras—and the success of legislative reform efforts in 1952—I have studied the forces behind the reform of 1952: the problems with the law of the day, the people and groups of people involved in reform efforts, and the circumstances and strategies they used to their advantage to create change. This study has led me to identify various factors that led to the success of those efforts in 1952. In parallel with the study of the history behind the Patent Act of 1952, I highlight the problems with the law today, the people and groups of people involved today in reform efforts, and the circumstances and strategies they might use to their advantage to create change. Moreover, drawing from the factors that led to the success of legislative reform efforts in 1952, I analyze how those same factors may contribute to the success of current legislative reform efforts—or hinder it. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................... 431 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 433 * Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation, SMU Dedman School of Law; J.D., 2003, Harvard Law School; B.S., 1999, Texas A&M University. Special thanks to Rachel, Caroline, Emily, and Joshua Taylor. The views and any errors in this Article are my own. 432 Michigan State Law Review 2019 I. PATENT REFORM—THEN ......................................................... 435 A. Clear Need for Legislative Intervention .......................... 435 1. Long-Felt Need for Improvement .............................. 436 2. Problems Emanating from the Supreme Court ......... 437 a. The Invention Requirement ................................ 437 b. The Patent Misuse Doctrine ................................ 439 3. Lower Court and Patent Office Confusion ................ 440 4. Identification of the Need for Reform ........................ 445 5. Sense of Urgency ....................................................... 447 B. Involvement of the Patent Bar ......................................... 449 1. Leadership ................................................................. 450 a. Henry Ashton ...................................................... 450 b. P.J. Federico........................................................ 451 c. Giles S. Rich ....................................................... 453 d. Paul Rose ............................................................ 456 e. Others .................................................................. 457 2. Scholarly Research .................................................... 458 3. Early Reform Proposals ............................................ 460 4. Organization and Consolidation ............................... 461 C. Good Drafting .................................................................. 463 1. Hard Work ................................................................. 463 2. Good Judgment ......................................................... 464 3. Clarity ....................................................................... 464 4. Flexibility and Willingness to Improve ..................... 465 5. Adoption of Prior Judicial Standard ......................... 467 6. Adoption of an Objective Standard ........................... 469 D. Legislative Stewardship ................................................... 470 1. Avoiding Political Intervention ................................. 471 2. Engaging in Political Intervention ............................ 472 E. Article and Speaking Campaign ...................................... 474 1. Federico, Zinn, and Harris ....................................... 475 2. Rich ........................................................................... 476 F. Judicial Recognition ........................................................ 479 1. Learned Hand ............................................................ 479 2. Graham v. John Deere Co. ........................................ 481 3. Anderson’s-Black Rock and Sakraida ...................... 483 G. Fortuity ............................................................................ 486 1. Timing of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. .................................. 486 2. Coincidence ............................................................... 487 3. Charles Reed ............................................................. 487 II. PATENT REFORM—NOW.......................................................... 497 Patent Reform, Then and Now 433 A. Clear Need for Legislative Intervention .......................... 498 B. Involvement of Patent Bar ............................................... 503 C. Good Drafting, Legislative Stewardship, Campaigning, Judicial Recognition, and Fortuity ........... 505 CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 509 INTRODUCTION One of the most significant legislative reforms of the U.S. patent system occurred in 1952. Prior to 1952, the patent system found itself languishing, undermined by a confusing nonstatutory “invention” requirement.1 In 1952, Congress and the President eliminated it, replacing it with what ultimately became known as the “nonobviousness” requirement.2 In 1966, the Supreme Court accepted what Congress and the President had done and applied the nonobviousness requirement rather than the invention requirement in a series of cases, providing the inventive community with a clear test for patentability.3 Today we find ourselves in a situation surprisingly similar to the one prior to 1952. The patent system again finds itself languishing, undermined by a new confusing nonstatutory “inventive concept” 1. See, e.g., NAT’L PATENT PLANNING COMM’N, THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM, H.R. DOC. NO. 78-239, at 5 (1943) (“The most serious weakness in the present patent system is the lack of a uniform test or standard for determining whether the particular contribution of an inventor merits the award of the patent grant . Novelty alone is not sufficient, nor is utility, nor is the final accomplishment. There must also be present some mysterious ingredient connoted in the term ‘invented’ . The difficulty is that there is no accepted uniform standard among [the] several tribunals which can be applied in the same or similar cases . No other feature of our law is more destructive to the purpose of the patent system than this existing uncertainty as to the validity of a patent . The present confusion threatens the usefulness of the whole patent system and calls for an immediate and effective remedy.”). 2. See Patent Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-593, 66 Stat. 792, 798 (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2012)) (“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”). 3. See generally Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 3 (1966) (describing nonobviousness as a requirement of patentability); United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 48 (1966) (providing that nonobviousness is one of three tests of patentability that must be satisfied in a valid patent). 434 Michigan State Law Review 2019 requirement.4 Today, just like in 1952, there are ongoing calls for Congress and the President to eliminate it.5 Even if they do so, however, it is not certain whether the Supreme Court will accept the elimination of the inventive concept requirement and apply a new statutory requirement in its place, let alone whether a new statutory requirement will provide the inventive community with a clear test for patentability. Given the striking parallels between these two eras—and the success of legislative reform efforts in 1952—I have sought to understand exactly how the reform occurred in 1952, and therefore how similar reform might occur today. This effort required studying the forces behind the reform of 1952: the problems with the law of the day, the people and groups of people involved in reform efforts, and the circumstances and strategies they used to their advantage to create change. This study has led me to identify various factors that led to the success of those efforts in 1952, success in terms of the enactment of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PANEL I: the End of Equivalents? Examining the Fallout from Festo
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 13 Volume XIII Number 3 Volume XIII Book 3 Article 1 2003 PANEL I: The End of Equivalents? Examining the Fallout from Festo J. Michael Jakes Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner Herbert Michael Schwartz Fish & Neave Harold C. Wegner Foley & Lardner Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Michael Jakes, Herbert Michael Schwartz, and Harold C. Wegner, PANEL I: The End of Equivalents? Examining the Fallout from Festo, 13 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 727 (2003). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol13/iss3/1 This Transcript is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 4 - PANEL I FORMAT 5/30/03 7:56 AM PANEL I: The End of Equivalents? Examining the Fallout from Festo Moderator: John Richards* Panelists: J. Michael Jakes† Herbert Schwartz‡ Harold C. Wegner§ PROFESSOR RICHARDS: Thank you, Dean Treanor. What we are going to do first is have opening statements from each of our panelists here. They are going to talk for ten minutes or so on their views of the Festo situation, and then we are going to open up into a general discussion, and those in the audience who feel they want to contribute are heartily encouraged to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Nature: a Problem of History Christopher Beauchamp Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship Winter 2013 Patenting Nature: A Problem of History Christopher Beauchamp Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation 16 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 257 (2013) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2 WINTER 2013 PATENTING NATURE: A PROBLEM OF HISTORY Christopher Beauchamp* CITE AS: 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 257 (2013) http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/patentingnature.pdf ABSTRACT The practice of patenting genetic material is currently under sharp attack. Recent litigation has forced the courts to grapple with the doctrinal basis for patenting DNA sequences identical to those found in nature. Faced with conflicting authorities and difficult policy questions, courts have leaned heavily on history to guide—or at least to justify—their decisions. This article explores the history in question. It traces the patent law’s changing treatment of “products of nature” in an attempt to untangle the origins of present-day patentability arguments. The evidence suggests that the historical foundations of the bar on patenting products of nature are surprisingly shaky. The article also reveals how isolated biological materials first came to be patented. This task, I argue, requires looking not only to court decisions, but also to the history of patent practice. My principal vehicle for doing so is the case of Parke-Davis & Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Linn Inn Alliance
    Contains Confidential Information. Do Not Distribute. The Richard Linn American Inn of Court 2020-2021 Membership Handbook www.linninn.org © 2020 Richard Linn American Inn of Court. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Message From The President ..................................................................................... 1 Meeting Dates and Logistics ...................................................................................... 3 Member Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 6 Officers and Administrators ....................................................................................... 8 2020-2021 Program Schedule .................................................................................... 9 The Richard Linn American Inn of Court ...............................................................10 2020-2021 Membership & Dues Form ...............................................................10 Mark T. Banner Scholarship ....................................................................................13 Origins of the Mark T. Banner Scholarship .........................................................16 Diversity ...................................................................................................................17 Hon. Arlander Keys Scholarship .............................................................................19 Background ..............................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley Technology Law Journal
    BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 14 NUMBER 3 FALL 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS IN MEMORIAM: JUDGE GILES S. RICH RECOLLECTIONS OF JUDGE GILES S. RICH ...................................................................... 889 By Paul R. Michel A R ICH L EGACY .............................................................................................................. 895 By Janice M. Mueller REMEMBRANCES AND MEMORIAL: JUDGE GILES S. RICH, 1904 - 1999 ......................... 909 By Neil A. Smith ARTICLES CONTROLLING MARKET POWER IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS: ANTITRUST VS. SECTOR- SPECIFIC REGULATION-AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NEW ZEALAND, AND AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCES ........................................................... 919 By Michel Kerf and Damien Geradin THE INTERNET GAMBLING FALLACY CRAPS OUT ......................................................... 1021 By Joel Michael Schwarz ESSAYS ICANN: BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE PRIVATE-COMMENTS BEFORE CONGRESS. 1071 By Jonathan Zittrain PATENTS, PRODUCTS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CELLPRO MARCH- IN PETITIO N ........................................................................................................... 1095 By Barbara M. McGarey and Annette C. Levey COMMENT SAFETY IN NUMBERS: REVISITING THE RISKS TO CLIENT CONFIDENCES AND ATrORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE POSED BY INTERNET ELECTRONIC MAIL .............. 1117 By Joshua M. Masur DONORS The Berkeley Technology Law Journal acknowledges the following gen- erous donors to the Journal: Benefactors ($5,000 and above) FENWICK & WEST, L.L.P. KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR Palo Alto, CA Newport Beach, CA HOWARD, RICE, NEMEROVSKI, CANADY, LYON & LYON, L.L.P. FALK & RABKIN Los Angeles, CA San Francisco, CA PENNIE & EDMONDS, L.L.P. IRELL & MANELLA, L.L.P. New York, NY Los Angeles, CA WELL, GOTSCHAL & MANGES, L.L.P. Menlo Park, CA Patrons ($2,000 to $4,999) BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON L.L.P. GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH, L.L.P. Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA DAY, CASEBEER, MADRID & BATCHELDER, KIRKLAND & ELLIS L.L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • BILSKI V. KAPPOS: SIDELINE ANALYSIS from the FIRST INNING of PLAY Ebby Abrahamt
    BILSKI V. KAPPOS: SIDELINE ANALYSIS FROM THE FIRST INNING OF PLAY Ebby Abrahamt On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bilski v. Kappos,' a case that some described as having "the makings of a landmark decision in patent law." 2 The Supreme Court reviewed the scope of the word "process," one of the four legislatively-enacted categories that are eligible for patent protection in § 101 of the Patent Act.3 A restrictive reading of the word "process" could curtail or eliminate the scope of patent protection for business method patents4 and information-intensive processes-namely software and diagnostic patents. But an expansive reading of the word "process" could ensure patent protection for "anything under the sun that is made by man." When the decision arrived, business method patent owners narrowly avoided a strikeout. The Supreme Court held, by a scant 5-4 vote, that business methods were patent eligible. However, the decision also brought ominous news for business method patents.' The Supreme Court held the particular business method at issue, the Bilski patent, unpatentable under § 101, thereby casting an invalidity shadow over many existing business method patents. C) 2011 Ebby Abraham. - J.D. Candidate, 2012, University of California, Berkeley School of Law. 1. 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). 2. Adam Liptak, New Court Term May Give Hints to Views on Regulating Business, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 5, 2009, at Al. 3. 35 U.S.C. 5 101 (2006); Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3221. 4. There is not a clear definition for a business method patent, besides defining it tautologically-a patent claiming a method of doing business.
    [Show full text]
  • The Magazine of the American Inns of Court
    SPECIAL EDITION 2017 ® The Bencher® THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN INNS OF COURT 25 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY American Inns of Court www.innsofcourt.org 2 American Inns of Court ◆ www.innsofcourt.org The Bencher ◆ Special Edition 2017 FROM THE PRESIDENT Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart he American Inns of Court enjoys a storied a collaboration that later came to be known as history of growth and expansion, having, the Linn Inn Alliance. Indeed, during our 2011 T since its inception in 1980, become one of Celebration of Excellence, Senior U.S. District the largest organizations of legal professionals in Judge Richard Linn was recognized with the A. the country. Our organization’s notable history is Sherman Christensen Award for serving as the enriched by the creation and expansion of intellec- primary catalyst for intellectual property Inn tual property (IP) focused Inns, which have dedicated growth through the United States and elsewhere. themselves to bringing the Inns of Court experi- The creation of this specialty Inn alliance—the ence to the entire intellectual property community. first of its kind—helped foster the largely collegial The growth, development, and increasing focus on nature of the ever-growing patent bar and localize intellectual property law has a historical genesis. To an inherently national practice. Today, almost ten encourage innovation and investment in valuable years since the inception of the Linn Inn Alliance, creations, the founding fathers enshrined protec- there are more than 25 IP-focused Inns dedicated to tions for intellectual property in Article I, Section 8 of improving the American Inns of Court experience the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
    IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________________ Request for Comments Related to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ________________________ Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053 ________________________ COMMENTS OF PROFESSOR ANDREW CHIN REGARDING PRONG TWO OF REVISED STEP 2A ________________________ PROFESSOR ANDREW CHIN* University of North Carolina School of Law† 160 Ridge Road, CB #3380 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 Reg. No. 47,486 [email protected] March 8, 2019 * The views expressed in these comments are solely those of the author, whose only interest is in the development of coherent patent examination procedures that conform to the Supreme Court’s patent-eligible subject matter jurisprudence. † Institutional affiliation is provided for identification purposes only. RECOMMENDATION Analysis of whether a claim “integrates a judicial exception into a practical application” under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A should incorporate an explicit determination as to whether the claimed invention’s result or effect (1) follows necessarily as a logical consequence of the judicial exception or (2) is a matter of a posteriori (i.e., experiential) knowledge that can best be verified empirically by practicing the claimed invention. STATEMENT I. The revised guidance for Prong Two of Revised Step 2A focuses on preemption concerns while neglecting the gatekeeping function of subject matter eligibility that has also perennially informed the Supreme Court’s § 101 jurisprudence. The proposed test would address this gatekeeping
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin Augsept09.Indd
    A Publication of The New York Intellectual Property Law Association August/September 2009 Bulletin In This Issue When Your Case May Hang on a Single Comma: Article: Ariad Revives the Written Description Debate When Your Case under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1 May Hang on a Single Comma ......1, 3-5 By Dorothy R. Auth and John P. Halski President’s Corner .........2 or over four decades, patent prac- requirement is. The rehearing en banc titioners have struggled to cut is bound to be one of the most closely Report on F through a seemingly ever-growing watched proceedings this year, and the Annual Dinner .........6-7 thicket of not necessarily consistent validity of countless patents may hang jurisprudence concerning the meaning on the grammatical significance of a Leadership in the of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112. stray comma. Practice of Law ......8-10 Of particular concern is whether the first paragraph of Section 112 only requires Basis for the Written Description Honorable that the specification enable the skilled Requirement William C. Conner reader to make and use the invention, or Originally appearing in 1870, the Tribute ..................11-16 whether it also demands that the specifi- first counterpart of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1 cation convey that the inventor actually demands: Historian’s Corner .......16 possessed the claimed invention at the The specification shall contain time of the application. After years of a written description of the in- allowing the question to percolate, the vention, and of the manner and CLE Program Reports: Federal Circuit has at last decided to process of making and using • Patent/Trade tackle the controversy head on, having it, in such full, clear, concise Secret Comple- granted a petition for rehearing en banc and exact terms as to enable mentariness ..............17 by the plaintiffs in Ariad Pharmaceuti- any person skilled in the art to cals, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Long CV Illinois.Pages
    Jacob S. Sherkow University of Illinois College of Law 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave., Champaign, IL 61820-6909 [email protected] | 217.300.3936 ACADEMIC POSITIONS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN Professor of Law, College of Law, 2020–present Affiliate, Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL Professor of Law, 2018–2020 Associate Professor, 2014–2018 Affiliated Faculty, Innovation Center for Law and Technology 2018 Otto L. Walter Distinguished Writing Award Class of 2017 Teaching Award VISITING POSITIONS UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN, FACULTY OF LAW Permanent Visiting Professor, Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law, 2018–present HARVARD UNIVERSITY Edmond J. Safra/Petrie-Flom Centers Joint Fellow-in-Residence, 2019–2020 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MAILMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Visiting Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management, 2017–2019 STANFORD LAW SCHOOL Visiting Scholar, Spring 2018 Fellow, Center for Law and the Biosciences, 2012–2014 EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL J.D., cum laude, 2008 Contributing Editor, MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW James N. Adler Scholarship Fred L. Leckie Scholarship COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY M.A., Biotechnology, 2006 University Research Assistant Scholarship (Full Tuition) MCGILL UNIVERSITY B.Sc., Molecular Biology, English Literature, 2004 Dean’s Commendation for Student Leadership Jacob S. Sherkow, c.v. p. 2 PUBLICATIONS (SSRN) BOOKS INNOVATION INSTITUTIONS AND COVID-19 (in progress) (with Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, W. Nicholson Price, II & Rachel E. Sachs) LAW REVIEW ARTICLES & ESSAYS Presidential Administration and FDA Guidances: A New Hope, 2021 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ONLINE (forthcoming) (with Nathan Cortez) EpiPen, Patents, and Life and Death, 96 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE (forthcoming 2021) (with Patricia J.
    [Show full text]
  • Paradise Lost in the Patent Law? Changing Visions of Technology in the Subject Matter Inquiry, 60 Fla
    Florida Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 3 Article 5 11-18-2012 Paradise Lost in The aP tent Law? Changing Visions of Technology in The ubjecS t Matter Inquiry Dana Remus Irwin [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Dana Remus Irwin, Paradise Lost in The Patent Law? Changing Visions of Technology in The Subject Matter Inquiry, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 775 (2008). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol60/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Irwin: Paradise Lost in The Patent Law? Changing Visions of Technology i Florida Law Review Founded 1948 Formerly University of Florida Law Review VOLUME 60 SEPTEMBER 2008 NUMBER 4 PARADISE LOST IN THE PATENT LAW? CHANGING VISIONS OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE SUBJECT MATTER INQUIRY Dana Remus Irwin* Abstract In recent decades, the Patent and Trademark Office and the federal courts have dramatically expanded the scope of patentable subject matter—the set of inventions eligible for patent protection. Existing scholarship has taken a narrow view of this expansion. Scholars argue on efficiency grounds that without more meaningful limits on the scope of patentable subject matter, future invention will be impeded rather than encouraged. This Article takes a broader view of the subject matter inquiry, tracing its historical development and its changing theories of technology, from the patent system’s inception to the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Harris Brean Assistant Professor of Law the University of Akron School of Law 150 University Avenue | Akron, OH 44325-2901 | 330.972.6794 | [email protected]
    Daniel Harris Brean Assistant Professor of Law The University of Akron School of Law 150 University Avenue | Akron, OH 44325-2901 | 330.972.6794 | [email protected] OVERVIEW I am a professor of patent law and other intellectual property law. My research focuses on patent remedies, emerging technologies, and industrial design. I am also an accomplished patent litigator, having frequently appeared and argued before many U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (where I previously served as a law clerk). I am a former shareholder at The Webb Law Firm, an intellectual property boutique, where I remain of counsel to advise and assist in patent litigation matters. FACULTY The University of Akron School of Law, Akron, OH POSITIONS Assistant Professor of Law (8/2016 – Present) • COURSES: Patent Law & Policy; Patent Office Litigation; International Intellectual Property Law; Licensing Intellectual Property; 1L Honors Seminar Co-instructor • COMMITTEES: Faculty Recruitment; Curriculum; Dean Search • ACTIVITIES: Coach for Giles Rich Patent Moot Court teams; Law Review student note advisor; Liaison for Intellectual Property Advisory Council The University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA Adjunct Professor of Law (1/2014 – 5/2016) • COURSES: Patent Law (S14, F14, F15), Advanced Topics in Patent Law (S15, S16) PUBLICATIONS Law Reviews and Journals (available at http://ssrn.com/author=1359847) Patent Enforcement in Cyberterritories (work in progress) Business Methods, Technology, and Discrimination, 2018 MICH. ST. L. REV. __ (forthcoming) Casting Aspersions in Patent Trials, 79 U. PITT. L. REV. __ (forthcoming) (w/ Bryan Clark) Pro Se Patent Appeals at the Federal Circuit, 21 STAN.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGE GILES S. RICH, 1904 - 1999 by Neil A
    IN MEMORIAM REMEMBRANCES AND MEMORIAL: JUDGE GILES S. RICH, 1904 - 1999 By Neil A. Smith t Twenty-eight years ago, when I was beginning my career in patent law, I applied for a job as a law clerk to Judge Giles S. Rich of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Now, when I could be retir- ing, I have the opportunity and pleasure to share with others some of my remembrances in tribute to Judge Giles S. Rich. My memories of Judge Rich begin with my interview. I was inspired by the Judge, even then an elder statesman of the judiciary and patent law, and I knew immediately that I wanted the law clerk position, despite the cut in pay I would take to get it. At my interview, Judge Rich gave me copies of the brief in a pending CCPA case, and asked me to write a "draft" opinion as a writing sample. Apparently I qualified, since I shortly received a letter from Judge Rich in July of 1971, offering me the job. He wrote that he "found [my] draft opinion quite acceptable, except for a few little technicalities and reserv- ing the right to disagree with the result."' Darn right! The case was In re Oda. 2 I wrote a draft opinion, affirming. Judge Rich authored the opinion for the court, reversing. 3 This was the man for whom I was going to help draft opinions? Judge Rich went on to state: I have concluded that I would like to have you for a law clerk, commencing in the late summer of 1972, but, speaking as an older to a younger man, I feel obliged to mention some of life's uncertainties...
    [Show full text]