Digestion as infringement: the problem of pro-drugs

Article Abstract:

The potential for the digestive process to alter the chemical structure of a drug slightly presents problems for patent law's reliance on chemical structure as a method of distinguishing pharmaceutical patents. Obviousness and induced infringement theories have not been accepted to claim infringement in cases where a later patent integrates expressly into the claimed chemical structure an in vivo process assumed by an earlier similar patent. The doctrine of equivalents is the theory best suited for showing functional infringement by a technically distinguishable pro-drug.

United States, Drugs, Intellectual property

---

Piercing the corporate veil: is it the proper standard for determining personal liability for direct patent infringement?

Article Abstract:

The standard of personal participation should be used to ascertain liability for patent infringement instead of the Federal Circuit's more stringent standard for officers of corporations. The current standard requires a piercing of the corporate veil to identify responsible individuals, but this is appropriate for corporate debts or actions instead of patent infringement.

Analysis, Disregard of corporate entity, Disregarding corporate entity

---

Doctrine of equivalents adds torque to Japanese patent infringement

Article Abstract:

The article discusses how patentees can use the the equivalents doctrine to better enforce their patents in Japan. The ruling of the Osaka High court in Genentech Inc. v. Sumitomo Pharmaceutical Co. is discussed, which explained the policy justification for using this doctrine, along with the limitations for using it.

Japan

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Washington gets amendment fever: the 'new federalism' has Congress and the Supreme Court debating first principles
• Abstracts: Open access in the power industry: competition, cooperation, and policy dilemmas. Measuring market power in electric generation
• Abstracts: No: the remedy lies in state court. Yes: it's time to declare war on spouse abuse. No: grandstanding does not offer a solution
• Abstracts: Constitution provides no right to be killed. Defense of marriage - or attack on family? Assisted suicide is a federal case

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.