FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W248431749> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W248431749 startingPage "943" @default.
• W248431749 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND A. Common Law Research Exemption B. The Statutory Research Exemption C. Patent System Goals and Research Exemptions D. Merck v. Integra: Facts and History III. ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE COURT A. Petitioner's Position B. Respondents' Position IV. ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION A. Interpretation of the Federal Circuit's Decision B. Partial Rejection of this Construction C. The Supreme Court's Three Element Test 1. The Regulatory Hook 2. Subjective Intent 3. Reasonable Basis V. RECOMMENDATIONS--APPLYING MERCK V. INTEGRA A. The Target of the Supreme Court's Standard B. The Statutory and Common Law Research Exemptions VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Protection from patent infringement liability for certain research-related activities has been a component of U.S. patent law from the early days of the patent system. These exemptions from infringement liability represent a limitation on patent exclusivity as well as an important mechanism for ensuring that patent exclusivity does not unduly hinder technological advancement. For these reasons, when the Supreme Court speaks regarding the scope of a research exemption, a close look at the scope of the exemption is warranted. In Merck v. Integra, (1) the Supreme Court issued an opinion explicitly interpreting a statutory research exemption. However, this opinion also provides guidance for how courts in the future should view the interaction between this statutory research exemption and the common law research exemption. Part II of this Note provides background about the development of the common law research exemption, the statutory research exemption of 35 U.S.C. [section] 271(e)(1) (2000), the various policy considerations relevant to analyzing the scope of research exemptions, and the facts of Merck v. Integra. Part III analyzes the major arguments raised before the Supreme Court by the petitioner and the respondent in Merck v. Integra--a case involving Merck's research using an invention owned by Integra. Part IV provides analysis of the Supreme Court's opinion in Merck v. Integra and determines the standard for applying [section] 271(e)(1) in the future. Part V provides an evaluation of the relationship between the common law research exemption and the statutory research exemption of [section] 271(e)(1). This analysis leads to the conclusion that the statutory research exemption begins to provide immunity from patent infringement liability immediately after the common law research exemption's immunity ends. II. BACKGROUND First, this Part provides a brief synopsis of the development of the common law research exemption to patent infringement from its early common law roots to the modern Federal Circuit formulation. Second, this Part provides a look at the legislative intent and judicial interpretations of the statutory research exemption of 35 U.S.C. [section] 271(e)(1). Third, the various policy aspects of research exemptions are considered. Finally, this Part concludes with the factual and procedural setting of Merck v. Integra. A. Common Law Research Exemption The common law research exemption from patent infringement is widely recognized to trace its origins to two decisions from the early nineteenth century written by Justice Story. (2) These two cases, Whittenmore v. Cutter (3) and Sawin v. Guild, (4) stated that the use of a patented invention does not constitute patent infringement if the use is for the mere purpose of philosophical experiment (5) or to test the truth of the patent's specification. (6) This common law research exemption allowed for certain uses of patented inventions without the consent of the patentee as long as the use did not divert to the accused infringer a portion of the profits that rightfully belonged to the patentee. (7) In a more recent case, the Court of Claims (8) held that the United States could not utilize the common law research exemption when its use, testing to determine the capabilities of military helicopters built with patented technology, fell within the legitimate business of the United States military. …" @default.
• W248431749 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W248431749 creator A5058291989 @default.
• W248431749 date "2007-06-22" @default.
• W248431749 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W248431749 title "Merck V. Integra: (Section) 271(e)(1) and the Common Law Research Exemption" @default.
• W248431749 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W248431749 type Work @default.
• W248431749 sameAs 248431749 @default.
• W248431749 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W248431749 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W248431749 hasAuthorship W248431749A5058291989 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C110346835 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C179576951 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W248431749 hasConcept C2779204856 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C110346835 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C158129432 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C170706310 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C17744445 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C179576951 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C199539241 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C2777834853 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C2778272461 @default.
• W248431749 hasConceptScore W248431749C2779204856 @default.
• W248431749 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W248431749 hasLocation W2484317491 @default.
• W248431749 hasOpenAccess W248431749 @default.
• W248431749 hasPrimaryLocation W2484317491 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W124410956 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W1483956035 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W1510653259 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W1536322074 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W1563594452 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W194351138 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W203802826 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W21053357 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W2144263920 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W2210782378 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W2247580299 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W2258395419 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W2600467367 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W2810112851 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W3123091094 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W3134208434 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W31980241 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W42890738 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W57939644 @default.
• W248431749 hasRelatedWork W652261479 @default.
• W248431749 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W248431749 isParatext "false" @default.
• W248431749 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W248431749 magId "248431749" @default.
• W248431749 workType "article" @default.