Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

The right to a jury trial in actions under the Hatch-Waxman Act

Article Abstract:

The Hatch-Waxman Act links patent with food and drug laws to create a new cause of action for patent infringement under Patent Code section 271(e)(2) which is clearly equitable and not amenable to jury trial. The Act limits relief to equitable injunctive and discretionary remedies to be determined by the courts. The 7th Amendment right to jury trial does not apply to cases under section 271(e)(2) because it is only applicable to cases at law. Legal issues do not arise from requests for declaratory judgments or defenses under the section.

Author: Coggio, Brian D., Bresnick, Sandra A.
Publisher: Patent and Trademark Office Society
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1997
Drug approval

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Means plus function claims after Markman: is claim construction under 35 U.S.C. section 112, paragraph 6 a question of fact or an issue of law?

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court in Markman v. Westview Instruments implicitly determined that means-plus-function claim limitations under Patent Code section 112, paragraph 6 should be construed by courts as a matter of law. The four factors the Court employed to determine legal or factual justiciability can be used to conclude that paragraph 12 issues should be construed by courts. This is consistent with the law regarding interpretations of other claim limitations.

Author: Casey, Kevin R.
Publisher: Patent and Trademark Office Society
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:

CAPTCHA


Eli Lilly v. Barr Labs: is a new use of an old compound no longer patentable?

Article Abstract:

In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that Eli Lilly recieved double patents on the drug Prozac. However, the C ourt made errors in interpreting patent law regarding what test it should use to determine double patenting.

Author: Juneau, Todd, Goldberg, Joshua
Publisher: Patent and Trademark Office Society
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 2003
Patents & copyrights

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Interpretation and construction, Laws, regulations and rules, Pharmaceutical industry, Intellectual property, Patent law, Right to trial by jury
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: The protection of human rights and the rigt to a fair tax trial in the light of the Jussila case. Can procedural rules create obstacles to fundamental freedoms in European Law?
  • Abstracts: Representing a franchisor in litigation with the FTC. FTC enforcement. Representing a franchisor in an FTC investigation
  • Abstracts: The legal suite is here! Seize the time! Timesaving case management system
  • Abstracts: Caselaw research Web site. Lexis-Nexis Office 97 vs. Westmate 6.3. The challengers to Lexis and Westlaw
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.