Plant patents - R.I.P
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses limits to a startling degree the protections offered under US plant patent law. Plant patent holders will have to prove that the plant in question was actually derived from the patented plant to prove infringement. The rights of plant inventors are therefore more akin to copyright holders than to holders of utility or design patents. The patent bar and industry should lobby Congress to amend plant patent laws to correct the Court's illogical construction of the law.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Ford v. Lemelson and continuing application laches
Article Abstract:
The legislative and case law history of section 120 of the 1952 Patent Act fails to completely resolve the issue of whether laches can be employed to preclude an inventor from enforcing patent rights after successive continuations. It is unclear whether abusive or unreasonable conduct must be shown before equitable remedies such as laches can be employed, though the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has demonstrated that it is less likely to protect inventor's rights. The issue is central to motions being decided in Ford Motor Co. v. Lemelson.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Ford v. Lemelson and continuing application laches revisited
- Abstracts: Rural HIV-service networks: patterns of care and policy issues
- Abstracts: "The Path of the Law" after one hundred years. Law as the continuation of God by other means
- Abstracts: Anti-avoidance principles - new directions for tax and business resulting from the High Court decision in Spotless
- Abstracts: Abolition of the presumption of 'doli incapax' and the criminalisation of children