Patent Licensing and Transactions

Branding is not a new concept, nor are the various intellectual property laws that protect brands. What is new to most is how this burgeoning industry can take advantage of those laws within the context of state and federal restrictions.

The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.

In the last five years, the courts have instead began wading into policy setting without the tools and resources to fully consider all the issues and various interests. Thus, the recent congressional efforts to consider these questions is welcome and, frankly, overdue.

Fifteen states had argued that they and their public universities shouldn't have to expose their patents to validity review at the patent trial and appeal board.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mayo and Myriad, the Federal Circuit has expanded the holdings and invalidated more patents directed to biological discoveries. If the newly discovered correlations and properties of what is found in nature cannot be patented, what strategies for protection are left for companies doing biological research?

Stanford Law School made available to the public a database of every patent lawsuit that's been filed since 2007.

Part Two of a Two-Part Article

USPTO Attempts to Provide Greater Clarity for Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

Part One of a Two-Part Article Congress is empowered to create a patent system to promote the useful arts, and it has enacted laws to create a patent system that encourages innovation. Balancing that power, however, the courts in recent years have tried to rein in the scope of the patent right by limiting the scope of patent-eligible subject matter.