Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: Legal Theory BlogSeymore on Novelty in Patent Law
By Lawrence Solum
-
The novelty requirement seeks to ensure that a patent will not issue if the public already possesses the invention. While gauging possession is usually straightforward for simple inventions, it can be difficult for those in complex fields like biotechnology, chemistry, and pharmaceuticals. For example, if a drug company seeks to patent a promising molecule that was disclosed but never physically made in the prior art, the key possession question is whether a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) could have made it at the time of the prior disclosure. Put differently, could the PHOSITA rely on then-existing knowledge in the field to fill in any missing technical details from the prior disclosure? This Article argues that existing novelty jurisprudence mishandles the possession question in two ways. First, it tends to overestimate the PHOSITA?s then-existing knowledge by failing to fully appreciate the complex nature of certain technologies. Second, the current examination framework vitiates the presumption of novelty by placing proof burdens on the would-be inventor can thwart innovation and frustrate important objectives of the patent system. In an effort to resolve these problems and to fill a gap in patent scholarship, this Article proposes a new paradigm that reframes the novelty inquiry during patent examination. Its implementation will not only improve the quality of issued patents, but make the patent literature a more robust source of technical information. This Article will contribute to broader policy debates over patent reform and join a larger effort to bridge the disconnect between patent law and the norms of science.
Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on March 04, 2010 (boomark / email).
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
Sony
to Pay $18.5 Million For Patent Infringment
Qualcomm Settles Patent Suit for $891 Million
The Princeton Review
$2.6 million settlement reached in patent infringement case.

Australian Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extension for Patches and Implants
En banc Federal Circuit rules on design patent infringement criteria
Design Patent Law: The New Ordinary Observer Test
En banc Federal Circuit scraps point of novelty test for design patent infringement








