FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1479872230> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1479872230 startingPage "259" @default.
• W1479872230 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The development of patent law in the United States has been marked by a high level of confidence that the Patent Office gets it right when it issues a patent. This confidence sprang up from the belief that a patent application is subjected to a thorough investigation by well-trained examiners who regularly analyze the technical issues presented by the patent application, and whose job it is, day in and day out, to make sure that patents are awarded to only those applications that comply with the patent rules. Based upon the high level of confidence in the decisions made by Patent Office examiners, courts derived the presumption that a patent is valid. Congress ultimately codified both this presumption, and that the burden of proving invalidity, falls upon the person challenging the patent, in amendments to the patent statute. Courts, in turn, have interpreted the amended statute as requiring that the challenger meet a higher standard of proof, clear and convincing evidence, in order to overcome the presumption. The overall effect of the presumptions, burdens and standards originating from the core confidence in the patent examiner's decision is to make it harder to invalidate an issued patent. Patent owners therefore wear the American eagle on their shoulders: those who attack the validity of a patent must overcome the significant obstacles that spring from the belief that the government gets it right. There is a perception among an increasing number of legislators, judges, and practitioners, however, that patent examiners are making mistakes and issuing an unduly large number of invalid patents. This perception has caused the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and, most recently, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to propose changes to the patent laws that make it easier to challenge the validity of issued patents. (1) The proposed reforms therefore seek to knock the eagle off of patent owners' shoulders: the growing suspicion that the government gets it wrong has created the impetus for reforms directed at lowering, if not eliminating, the significant obstacles to proving invalidity. The recent decision in Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. demonstrates that the Federal Circuit is already moving in the same direction as the proposed reforms. (2) In Chiron, the Federal Circuit held that the district court was not required to instruct the jury that a patent is presumed valid. (3) The decision of the Federal Circuit thus set the stage to approve of a situation where the presumed correctness of the government's actions and the presumed validity of the patent are not readily transparent to the jury in the trial of a patent infringement case. (4) Although not so far reaching as the FTC's proposal to lower the burden of proving invalidity, Chiron knocks the eagle off of the patent owner's shoulder by denying the jury the compelling explanation for why the heavy burden of proving invalidity is imposed upon the party challenging the validity of the patent. Chiron is likely a harbinger of further judicial implementation of the proposed reforms. Its unspoken, but nonetheless obvious rationale, is that the challenger should not bear the traditional heavy burdens associated with proving invalidity if the patent examiner cannot be relied upon to get it right. II. PATENT OWNERS WEAR THE EAGLE ON THEIR SHOULDERS A recurrent theme throughout what are literally decades of developing patent law is the confidence expressed by judges, practicing attorneys, and academics in the job done by the Patent Office. Patent examiners have long been viewed as correctly examining patents to make sure the claimed invention meets the statutory tests of patentable subject matter, (5) novelty, (6) nonobviousness, (7) utility, (8) and disclosure (9) such that, at least historically, there has been a high level of confidence that bad patents are not being allowed to slip through the system. …" @default.
• W1479872230 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1479872230 creator A5046917272 @default.
• W1479872230 date "2004-11-01" @default.
• W1479872230 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1479872230 title "Knocking the Eagle off the Patent Owner's Shoulder: Chiron Holds That Jurors Don't Have to Be Told That a Patent Is Presumed Valid" @default.
• W1479872230 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W1479872230 type Work @default.
• W1479872230 sameAs 1479872230 @default.
• W1479872230 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1479872230 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1479872230 hasAuthorship W1479872230A5046917272 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C115910719 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C2777029862 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C2779534841 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C2780253743 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C2780342482 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C2984145337 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C10138342 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C115910719 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C138885662 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C144133560 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C162324750 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C17319257 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C17744445 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C182306322 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C190253527 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C199539241 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C2777029862 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C2778137410 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C2779534841 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C2780253743 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C2780342482 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C2984145337 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C34974158 @default.
• W1479872230 hasConceptScore W1479872230C41895202 @default.
• W1479872230 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1479872230 hasLocation W14798722301 @default.
• W1479872230 hasOpenAccess W1479872230 @default.
• W1479872230 hasPrimaryLocation W14798722301 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W1196539744 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W1490462259 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W1547261181 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W158123920 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W1592164565 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W16527977 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W2003135302 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W247295976 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W2560533775 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W2946035216 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W3012451318 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W304689019 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W3123055777 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W3123803450 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W318443433 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W415639308 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W80018822 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W1954682070 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W305558706 @default.
• W1479872230 hasRelatedWork W3123208120 @default.
• W1479872230 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W1479872230 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1479872230 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1479872230 magId "1479872230" @default.
• W1479872230 workType "article" @default.