The obvious war

Science

Volumn 315, Issue 5809, 2007, Pages 190-191

  Samardzija, Michael R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGISLATION; STANDARD (REGULATION);

GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE; LAW; MARKETING; PATENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; VALIDITY; WAR; ARTICLE; DRUG LEGISLATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

LEGISLATION, DRUG; PATENTS; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33846527950     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136053     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. 35 U.S. Code (U.S.C) § 102.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3. Graham v. John Deere, Co. 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
4. Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Corp., 849 F.2d 902, 5 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
5. Gillette Co. v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 919 F.2d 720, 16 USPQ2d 1923 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
6. SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
7. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH S Co. v. C. H. Patrick Co., No. 06-1088, 2006 WL 2806466, pp. 8 and 9 (Fed. Cir. 3 October, 2006) [citing Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., No. 06-1019, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22616, pp. 7 and 8 (Fed. Cir. 6 September 2006)].
8. Examples of such dubious patents frequently identified are Amazon's one-click patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,960,411), a 5-year-old boy's method of swinging from a swing patent (U.S. Pat. No. 6,368,227), a crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich (U.S. Pat. No. 6,004,596), and, for those who are follicularly challenged, the three-way comb-over (U.S. Pat. No. 4,022,227).
9. P. M. Janicke, Antitrust Law J. 69,645,661 (2002).
10. C. Shapiro, in Innovation Policy and the economy, vol. 1, A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern, Eds. (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2001), pp. 119-150; available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley. edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf.
11. J. Lerner, J. Law Econ. 38(2), 463 (1995).
12. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Transforming to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century: A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration (USPTO, Washington, DC, August 2006), p. 64.
13. The average error rate for 2004 was 5.3%.
14. It takes, on average, 36 months for the USPTO to allow a patent application (24.3 months in the semiconductor technology group, 30.4 months in the biotechnology technology group, 41.9 months in the computer architecture software technology group) (12).
15. Changing the obviousness standard in a way that would lower an alleged patent infringer's burden to show that the claimed patent is obvious and, therefore, invalid would weaken the patent system.
16. Docket No. 04-1350, Questions Presented; available at www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/04-01350qp.pdf (accessed 3 October 2006).
17. Teleflex v. KSR, 298 F. Supp.2d 581, 592 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
18. Teleflex, Inc., v. KSR International Co., No. 04-1152 (6 January 2005) (slip op.).
19. See note (18), at p. 11.
20. Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,189 USPQ 449 (1976).
21. G. Mandel, Yale J. Law Technol. (in print 2006).
22. R. P. Wagner, L. Petherbridge, Texas Law Rev. 85(7), in press.
23. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.; p. 41, line 11, of www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_ transcripts/04-1350.pdf.