Recent Statutes, Regulations, and Court Cases Affecting Intellectual Property Rights of Life Sciences Institutions: Key Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act; Part I: Analysis of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verne Luckow
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Price Competition ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Court Cases

scholarly journals Intellectual property rights: The key to protecting bright ideas

2004 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 21-24
Author(s):  
Niall Head-Rapson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
New Ideas

With the estimated value of the life sciences and biotechnology market worldwide estimated to reach over 2000 billion (£1.330 billion, US$206 billion) by 2010 (excluding any application relating to agriculture), protecting new ideas or discoveries legally would appear to be a sound strategy for making the most of your discovery.

Intellectual Property Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-110
Author(s):  
Vijay Laxmi ◽  
Mary Shobha Rani Inala
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Professional Guidance

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) denote distinct types of conceptions of the mind for which property rights are documented. Basic and clinical scientists at research institutions often make ideas that have health benefits if developed and applied to the improvement of human wellbeing. Therefore, learning the basics of intellectual property protection and obtaining professional guidance in its management avoids such losses with a minimal burden of confidentiality on the investigator by using any of the mechanisms (patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and know-how agreements). The probability of scientific findings becoming accessible for public benefit is low without suitable intellectual property protection. This reality is particularly true in the life sciences and biotechnology arenas comparative to other areas of science, and hence, it is a prerequisite to know about intellectual property rights and their significance for better development.

Intellectual Property Rights

2011 ◽  
pp. 3442-3486
Author(s):  
Richard A. Spinello ◽  
Herman T. Tavani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Digital Rights Management ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rights Management

This chapter presents some foundational concepts and issues in intellectual property. We begin by defining intellectual objects, which we contrast with physical objects or tangible goods. We then turn to some of the normative justifications that have been advanced to defend the granting of property rights in general, and we ask whether those rationales can be extended to the realm of intellectual objects. Theories of property introduced by Locke and Hegel, as well as utilitarian philosophers, are summarized and critiqued. This sets the stage for reviewing the case against intellectual property. We reject that case and claim instead that policy makers should aim for balanced property rights that avoid the extremes of overprotection and underprotection. Next we examine four different kinds of protection schemes for intellectual property that have been provided by our legal system: copyright laws, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. This discussion is supplemented with a concise review of recent U.S. legislation involving copyright and digital media and an analysis of technological schemes of property protection known as digital rights management. Finally, we consider a number of recent controversial court cases, including the Napster case and the Microsoft antitrust suit. Many of the issues and controversies introduced in this chapter are explored and analyzed in greater detail in the subsequent chapters of this book.

Intellectual Property Rights

2011 ◽  
pp. 1-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Spinello ◽  
Herman T. Tavani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Digital Rights Management ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rights Management

This chapter presents some foundational concepts and issues in intellectual property. We begin by defining intellectual objects, which we contrast with physical objects or tangible goods. We then turn to some of the normative justifications that have been advanced to defend the granting of property rights in general, and we ask whether those rationales can be extended to the realm of intellectual objects. Theories of property introduced by Locke and Hegel, as well as utilitarian philosophers, are summarized and critiqued. This sets the stage for reviewing the case against intellectual property. We reject that case and claim instead that policy makers should aim for balanced property rights that avoid the extremes of overprotection and underprotection. Next we examine four different kinds of protection schemes for intellectual property that have been provided by our legal system: copyright laws, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. This discussion is supplemented with a concise review of recent U.S. legislation involving copyright and digital media and an analysis of technological schemes of property protection known as digital rights management. Finally, we consider a number of recent controversial court cases, including the Napster case and the Microsoft antitrust suit. Many of the issues and controversies introduced in this chapter are explored and analyzed in greater detail in the subsequent chapters of this book.

scholarly journals Procedural issues of applying to the court for the protection of intellectual property rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 46-55
Author(s):  
Andrii Shabalin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protecting Intellectual Property

Keywords: protection of intellectual property, court, EPC of Ukraine, CPC of Ukraine, European Court of Human Rights This scientific article explores the proceduralissues of going to court in case there is a violation of intellectual property rights. Inthe process of scientific research, the issues of jurisdiction in court cases on violationof intellectual property rights have been analyzed, the legal features of jurisdiction inlawsuits for violation of intellectual property rights have been determined, requirementsfor the content of a legal claim. Based on analysis of the economic procedurallegislation, it is concluded that a person who applies to the court for infringement ofintellectual property rights may refer to the cases of the European Court of HumanRights in order to substantiate his legal position. It is indicated that in the course ofthe 2016 judicial reforms in Ukraine, the rules of judicial jurisdiction and the competenceof the court in court cases on violation of intellectual property rights werechanged. At the level of procedural law, a special court was created — the High Courtof Intellectual Property, which is empowered to judicially review cases of IP violation.The High Court of Intellectual Property has not started its work for now. The authorpoints out that this situation has a negative impact on Ukrainian judicial practiceand the practice of protecting intellectual property rights. Based on the results of the study, the author proposed his own theoretical groundsand developed proposals for improving procedural legislation regarding the possibilityof introducing alternative jurisdiction in some categories of cases of violation of intellectualproperty rights. Such legal cases include copyright infringement of an individualwho is the author or the author's representative. The legal rule on alternativejurisdiction in cases of infringement of intellectual property rights is effective if thereis a violation of IP rights in the Ukrainian temporarily occupied territories. The authorpoints out that such a legislative proposal will improve the quality of legal protectionof subjects of intellectual property rights in the temporarily occupied Ukrainianterritories.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document