Suchergebnisse

In recent years, Myanmar has taken its place on the world stage, causing both disquiet and uncertainty in the international community in terms of its policies relating to various legal and political matters. This former kingdom with its long and impressive history, and comprising many different ethnic groups, has experienced long periods of occupation and colonial rule, the most recent being as a British colony prior to independence in 1948. Today, despite having a democratically elected government, Myanmar continues to live under the shadow of the former military dictatorship which ruled the country from 1962 to 2011. Many aspects of its legal system have recently come under scrutiny, including its policies towards intellectual property rights. This paper explores the history of patent law in Myanmar, making the connection with the country's turbulent past, as well as offering a glimpse of what may be a possible future regarding patent protection. It will also examine the international treaties and organizations to which Myanmar is a signatory, and its recognition of foreign patents. There will be some discussion of patent rights in neighbouring countries and other intellectual property protections.

Reprinted from American law and procedure, ed. by J. P. Hall, v.4. ; Mode of access: Internet.

In this special comment, the author posits that the patent system as it stands is archaic and oppressive, and has neither intellectual nor moral support. Having veered away from its original goals, by virtue of the change in the technological and functional basis of government, it instead serves as a justification for inequalities of wealth distribution. The author argues that substantial reform is required that would shift the balance in patent law from monopolistic greed to public interest, paving the way for access to knowledge.

"Being the opinions and rulings of the Circuit Courts of the United States and Commissioner of Patents; covering a period of over twenty-five years, with classified references to law reports of important patent litigation, and a full digest of subjects and special cases, and the maxims of law given thereto also the patent laws of the United States and revisions. (Full text.)" ; Includes bibliographical references and index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Despite advice to parliament that patents are granted only for "a significant advance over what was known and what was available to the public" the evidence shows this is not the standard used. The actual standard is a scintilla – a marginal difference from what is known. The consequence of such a low standard is that thousands of patents are granted for things that contribute no public benefit. Such trivial patents can impede genuinely inventive companies.

Despite advice to parliament that patents are granted only for "a significant advance over what was known and what was available to the public" the evidence shows this is not the standard used. The actual standard is a scintilla – a marginal difference from what is known. The consequence of such a low standard is that thousands of patents are granted for things that contribute no public benefit. Such trivial patents can impede genuinely inventive companies.

"There has been much written on the impact of international treaties like the Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property (TRIPS), which laments the failure of patent systems to respond to the interests of a diverse set of non-profit, public interest, and non-corporate entities. This book examines how patent law can accommodate what James Boyle terms a "politics", that is, "a conceptual map of issues, a rough working model of costs and benefits, and a functioning coalition-politics of groups unified by common interests perceived in apparently diverse situations". A Politics of Patent Law provides a substantive account of the ways in which various types of participatory mechanisms currently operate in patent law, and examines how these participatory mechanisms can be further developed, particularly within a regional and international context. In exploring this, Murray highlights the emergence of constitutional law in international intellectual property law as being at the centre of the patent bargain and goes so far as to argue that the constitutional tradition in intellectual property law is as important as TRIPS. Ultimately, the book sets forth a "tool-box" of participatory mechanisms which would allow for, and foster third party participation in the patent process. This book will be of particular interest to academics, students and practitioners in the field of IP Law"--

In patent law, "unenforceability" can have immense consequences. At least five equitable doctrines make up the defense of "unenforceability" as it was codified into the Patent Act in 1952: laches; estoppel; unclean hands; patent misuse; and according to some, inequitable conduct. Yet in the seventy years since incorporation of equitable defenses into the patent statute, the Supreme Court has not clarified their reach. Indeed, twice in the last four years, the Supreme Court avoided giving complete guidance on the crucial questions of whether, and when, such equitable defenses are available to bar damages in cases brought at law. Several interpretive methods have been proposed for determining the reach of generally worded statutes like the Patent Act. Under a dynamic statutory interpretation, courts would be permitted to develop such statutes in accordance with what the law ought to be. Under a traditional faithful agent approach, in contrast, courts would try to determine the scope as set forth by the legislature, piecing together context and history to frame limited words. The scope of equitable defenses in patent law is an ideal proving ground between these methods, having both historical background for use in traditional approaches and high-stakes social questions that factor into a dynamic approach—what conduct do we allow patentees to engage in before we cut off remedies for infringement on innovations that support our health and modern lifestyle? Setting the stage of the statutory interpretive battle, this Article examines the historical and statutory bases of equitable limits on patent law, with a particular focus on the substantive equitable defenses of unclean hands and patent misuse. It contrasts the history of equitable defenses such as estoppel, which crossed fully into courts of law well before the merger of law and equity and the Patent Act, with equitable defenses such as laches, unclean hands, and misuse. This Article walks through these defenses' pre-codification roots and potential statutory interpretations and presents normative and constitutional considerations under the competing interpretive approaches. It also presents a surprising approach to inequitable conduct, arguing that it is not an equitable defense and should no longer result in infectious invalidity. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis of equitable defenses in patent law.