The expansion of patent venue under the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act
Article Abstract:
The Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988 was enacted to narrow plaintiffs' choices of venue against corporations and to better define a corporation's residence for venue purposes when that corporation is in a multidistrict state. The law did not achieve the first goal, it broadened the plaintiff's choice of venue rather than narrowing it. Under the 1988 Act, the plaintiff must only meet requirements for personal jurisdiction in order to sue a corporation, something the plaintiff has to do anyway. The Act did meet the second goal, although it did so with a personal jurisdiction test rather than a venue analysis.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Are prior user rights consistent with federal patent policy?: The U.S. considers legislation to adopt prior user rights
Article Abstract:
The bill introduced in Congress in 1995 to provide prior users with a limited defense to patent infringement claims does not undermine the policies underlying patent law because the patent system still provides inventors with preferred protection. In Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., the US Supreme Court ruled that trade secret protections for undisclosed but patentable inventions were not contrary to patent policy because patent protection was still far more valuable. Allowing prior users to continue practicing an invention will not undermine policies that favor disclosure.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Rights to prior applications: hassling the hobgoblin of foolish consistency
Article Abstract:
The decisions of In re Gosteli and In re Scheiber will place a burden of anticipation upon generic patent claims which are not explicitly supported in prior applications. In Gosteli, the Patent and Trademark Office held that prior application rights using section 119 of the Patent Code must be ascertained by the claims in the later patent application in the US. One procedural technique to avoid anticipation is the addition of a claim which is explicitly supported in a prior application.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The decline of corporate-owned life insurance for the closely-held business owner
- Abstracts: The taxation of retirees under retiree health premium arrangements. Congress extends expiring tax provisions
- Abstracts: Practical aspects of defending bank mergers before the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Justice. Balancing competitor cooperation and competition against consumer welfare and viable international competition
- Abstracts: Constitutional structure and judicial deference to agency interpretations of agency rules. Informational standing under the NEPA: justiciability and the environmental decisionmaking process
- Abstracts: The baron of the boardroom. Economic and moral criteria of executive compensation. Good times ahead for white, rich males in America