Intellectual Property And Patents In The Smartphone Industry

Intellectual Property And Patents In The Smartphone Industry
The smartphone industry today is a highly competitive market in which major smartphone
manufacturers utilize patents to increase their sphere of influence within the tech wing. Company
growth and the bottom line may be the primary focus, but a secondary goal of stagnating
competitors through tech control is vital to staying king of the hill. Intellectual property is defined as
an invention or work that is the result of creativity. A company may apply for a patent, copyright, or
trademark to protect intellectual property. A patent is essentially a limited monopoly in which the
patent holder is allotted the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the patented innovation for a
limited period of time. Infringement of a patent is the unlawful making, using, or selling of the
patented device within the territories of the United States, during the term of the patent. The five
primary requirements for patentability are: patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non–
obviousness, and enablement. If a patent is infringed, the patent holder may sue for relief in the
appropriate Federal court. The patent holder may ask the court for an injunction to preclude the
persistent breach and may also ask the court for an award of damages. In such an infringement suit,
the defendant may question the validity of the patent, which is then decided by the court. The
defendant may also claim that its actions do not constitute infringement. Patents are exclusively
governed by federal law; the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

How 3d Printing Is Not A New Technology
Introduction
From robot hands to door stops to necklace pendants, companies like Thingverse and Shapeways are
printing our future. The only thing that stands in their way is patent infringement. The purpose of
this analytical report is to describe how 3D printing relates to patent infringement and decide how
companies should address issues pertaining to 3D printing. I will be referring to three different
source materials throughout this report: A Harvard law journal note, an article from a private law
firm dealing with patents, and a howstuffworks article on patent infringement.
Issue overview
3D printing is not a new technology. It has been around since the 1980's (Doherty, 356). Early 3D
printing technology was composed of two parts; a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Stereolithography is a process where a model is built using an injection head to heat and squeeze out
material, similar to a hot glue gun (Doherty 356).
To meet the demand for these devices, there are now a number of companies that specialize in
consumer level 3D printers and additive printing services. Among these are Makerbot and
Shapeways. Makerbot released their first 3D printer in 2012 along with their website Thingverse
which acts as a gathering point for hobbyists to upload and share CAD files that they can print at
home (Doherty 355). Shapeways is a company that aims to centralize 3D printing by offering users
the ability to upload their CAD files and get them printed in a variety of materials that normally
wouldn't be available (Doherty 357). With all of this information flowing in and out of these
businesses, companies like Makerbot and Shapeways have the ability to commit "wide scale patent
infringement" (Doherty 359). This will be discussed in the analysis section later on, but it might first
be helpful to know what patent infringement is.
In the article on HowStuffWorks, William Harris quotes Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,
which states: "Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries." He goes on to paraphrase this

Patents And Copyright Infringement Trials
Introduction
Intellectual properties are anything created by the mind. This includes inventions, designs, books,
etc. Many people protect their intellectual properties through copyrighting it. Copyrights are patents
and trademarks, and it gives the owners the right to claim their work and protect it from theft
("Intellectial Property" Help Desk). Use or reference of famous work is permitted whenn it is
"transformative" or for limited use. This work is considered "fair use" and many copyright
infringement trials have been dismissed because of the fair use doctrine. Copyrights are an
important tool to ensure that copyrighted work that is referenced mentions the original inventor,
rather than stealing their idea or invention, and claiming it as their own.
Copyright
Trademarks:
Trademark is a sign, design, or expression used in order to set a usiness apart. Trademarks serves as
two primary functions. The first is to provide rotection to manufacturers and traders by not allowing
unfair cometition. It also protects customers from impersonations. Trademarks today are considered
property, meaning that trademarks can be sold, inherited, or even leased as long as it is not the intent
to fool the customer.
Patent:
A patent gives all rights to the inventor and prevents anyone else from making, using, and selling
their idea. There are three different types of patents. The first is the utility patent, hich is the most
common type of patent. Utiity patents is mostly used

Biotechnology in Malysia : Medicinal Patent Essay
In Malaysia, pharmaceutical inventions in the form of products or process can be protected as
patents upon meeting the patentability requirement and do not fall under statutory exceptions for
non–patentable subject matters. The requirements for patentability of pharmaceutical inventions are
that the invention must be new, involves an inventive step and it is industrially applicable.
According to Biotechnology In Malaysia (2008), granted patents in the healthcare field are showing
an increasing trend by scoring 121 patents amongst 296 patents in total. These patents are under
legislation of the Patents Act 1983 in Malaysia.
This biological patent can be referring to the gene sequences patent (Ramachandran, 2009). A patent
with MY140009A, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Bhd instead. However, Universiti Putra Malaysia owns an intellectual property in medicine. An
example is antioxidant rich nutraceutical formulation with application number PI20050102. This
neutraceutical product compose of three antioxidants; tocopherols, tocotrienols and gamma oryzanol
that improve antioxidant status and reducing the risk of coronary heart disease.
The Patents Act(established on 1st August, 2001) provides thedrug patent owner certain exclusive
rights in respect of its patent within twenty years from the filing date of the application regarding the
patent applied (Lim &Ooi, 2006). The merit of drug discovery can reduced the risk of heart disease
which is common in Malaysia. The drug which haspatented prevents generic drug competition.
Patents provide legal protection for inventors in order to prevent other people from making use of
their ideas. Therefore, only the pharmaceutical company that developed the drug is allowed to sell it.
Drug patent gives impact in the economy by that the pharmaceutical companies often maintain that
patent protection for drugs ensures that they are able to dominate the market. They do this by
investlots of money into the development of new products, by making sure that they will be able to
take advantage of the sales.Patent protection for pharmaceutical can help to

Case 33 D2
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 19, 29, 32, 33 & 39 also lack an inventive step for the reasons given above. An
invention is necessarily obvious in the light of its disclosure. The subject matter of claims 2, 6, 8–
18, 20–28, 30, 31, 34–38, 40–46 lacks an inventive step and does not meet the requirements of
Article 33 (3) of the PCT. Claim 2 does not involve an inventive step in view of D2, D2 discloses: A
package comprising: (A) a package body having at least one face and a reclosable opening on the at
least one face (Fig.5 and inherently discloses a bag must have a reclosable opening); and (B) a
handle, for carrying the package (Fig.5; Item 10 & 80), the handle having: a. a first strap including a
first end and a second end (Item 10), the first ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Claims 6, 8 & 9 The added features in the appended claims 6, 8 & 9 are considered do not involve
an inventive step in light of D1. Although D1 does not disclose the first strap is attached to the first
face and the second strap is attached to the second face (Claim 6), the first and second strap are
attached to the at least once face having the reclosable opening (Claim 8) and the first strap and the
second strap are attached to different faces of the package body (Claim 9). However, it is considered
that the features added by appended claims 6, 8 & 9 cannot contribute to providing a patentable
inventive step because they relate to arrangements that are merely matters of design choice when the
general technical knowledge about the state of the art is used. Claims 12, 13 & 14 Claim 12 lacks
inventive step in light of D3. D3 discloses: The package body is made of at least one of {i) plastic
and (ii) paper (the carton box would be made by

Genetic Discoveries And Intellectual Property Rights
Genetic Discoveries and Intellectual Property Rights
As technology has change, grown, and evolve so has the application of the Canadian Patent Act.
Which before was used to deal with inventions that could be shown with prototypes, the Act is now
being used to protect more abstract innovations, such genetic material.
Patents cover new inventions such as process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement to an existing invention . Patents represent a contract between an
inventor and society. By granting 20 years market exclusivity, patents create the potential for
inventors to generate high monetary returns on their successful innovations and discoveries. In
exchange, the inventor provides a complete ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In order for any discovery or new invention to be patentable, as stated by the Canadian Intellectual
Property office "the invention/discovery must show novelty, utility, and ingenuity. Novelty: you
must be the original inventor or the person who discovered what you are trying to patent. Utility: a
valid patent cannot be obtained for something that does not work, or that has no useful function.
Ingenuity: To be patentable, your invention/discovery must be a development or an improvement of
an existing technology that would not have been obvious beforehand to a person of ordinary skill in
the technology involved."
Gene Patenting in Canada
Patents are necessary for technology to flourish. They provide an economic incentive to take the
initial costs of researching and developing of new inventions and discoveries, which later on benefit
and advance society. Without the protection of patents, as soon as a product enters the market,
competitors would be able to copy and manufacture and sell the product directly without having to
take the initial costs, that others have, which risks putting a stop to the creation and development of
new discoveries that continue to benefit society.
In Canada, gene patents are subject to the Canadian Patent Act. Which intends to "stimulate the
creation and development of new technologies". A patent lasts 20 years and gives its holder the
exclusive right and liberty of making, manufacturing and using the invention and selling it to

TTools Case Executive Summary Essay
interoffice memorandum to: Tom hazzard, ceo from: Venkata reddy putluri subject: palm patent
infringment issue date: June 19, 2014 c: steve holmes, patent attorney This memo is to recommend
that ttools should stop negotiations with Palm and take immediate legal action through patent
litigation means. This action is needed in order to protect ttools' innovation and for survivability of
ttools business. Based on the design patent and non–disclosure agreement with Palm it is very clear
that Palm has committed the infringement hence chances of ttools winning of litigation case are
high. There are high chances that Palm might consider to settle the litigation before going to the trial
of the case as they knew that they have ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Based on the recent communications with Palm, it is clear that they are not interested in negotiating
with ttools despite the fact that they have reminded them about infringement. Palm is already in a
contract with IDEO to design a stylus similar to ttools which means that Palm will cease to publish
any ads about ttools products from their online newsletter. Negotiating or competing without taking
any action to stop infringement of its intellectual property would not enable ttools to leverage its
core organizational strengths in competing with Palm. In its current state ads through the online
newsletter is the most helpful marketing tool for ttools to reach out to the PDA owners. If Palm
stops publishing ads which is highly likely action from Palm's perspective in order to promote their
own product ttools need to develop their own marketing capabilities. Even if they start their
marketing campaign, ttools might not be able to compete Palm in terms of resources and market
reach. The other alternative of ceasing negotiation and competing with Palm might not be very
effective because of the fact that we do not have the capabilities to set a solid ground for such
competition. Even if ttools start competing based on its superior pricing and material quality, Palm
could easily match its pricing and material quality as long as they could infringe ttools product
design. If ttools does not file litigation charges, Palm has not compelling reason to

Design Patents : A Design Patent
A. Design Patents Can Protect Simple Ornamental Designs Elements.
A design patent can be declared invalid, and thus unenforceable, if the design patent claims
primarily functional elements rather than primarily ornamental elements or if there is prior art that
serves inspiration for the competing products. Courts utilize various factors in determining whether
a claimed design is dictated by functional as a whole, or whether its ornamental elements can be
separated from the functional elements. In High Point Design v. Buyers Direct, the Court found that
designers made choices that are clearly separable from the functional elements of a shoe. Further,
the Court used its opinion to restate that it is a design patent prerequisite that the article in question
be an article of manufacture. Suggesting that most manufactured articles serve some function, it
would be against congresses intent to interpret the law in such a manner. Similarly, in Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., the Court states that ornamental elements of functional components are the
breadth of the claim and should not be excluded for their placements.
It is clear that simple products are design patentable, as long as the requirements are fulfill.
Innovation and simplicity are not mutually exclusive, in fact innovation often comes in the form of
creating more user friendly products. Similar to both Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., and High
Point Design v Buyers Direct, Maptote manufactures

The Conflict of Gene Patents
Patents are licenses granted by the government that give permission to an inventor the right to rent,
hire, or sell his invention. In the science community gene patents have created conflict between
those who believe that patents have helped science and those who believe it is actually hindering
science advances. Genes are important because they are the heredity of a living organism and it is
given from a parent to their offspring. Scientist study genes to find cures for the many diseases
found in the world. Unfortunately gene patents focus on the commercial side, therefore I believe
gene patents should be banned. In this essay, I will outline arguments for and against gene patents.
There have been many cases that have raised the public's awareness over gene patents. It was
recently brought to attention again in the case of Association for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013), when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that companies
cannot patent naturally occurring forms of DNA; they can only patent artificial produced DNA.
Naturally occurring genes are genes found on living organisms while artificial genes are products of
genetic material that occur when a gene has been isolated and they cannot be found in an organism.
There are many commercial uses of gene sequences for example in agriculture a particular product
such as rice contains genes once scientist isolates and clones them, he can find uses for those genes,
such as being able immune to particular

Analysis Of The Gower Review Of Intellectual Property...
1. Introduction: Biotechnology Invention.
The Gower Review of Intellectual Property reported that in 2006 that almost 20 percent of human
gene DNA sequences had been patented; 4,382 out of the 23,688 known human gene. There is
indeed a dramatic increase in the number of gene patented.
The statistics showed above had raised several type of argument on the patentability of the
biological materials, or more specifically on human gene. First, how a human gene can be
patentable, while the gene sequenced was not more than a discoveries rather than a invention?
Secondly, is it appropriate to grant a monopoly on genetically engineered organisms? Last but not
forgotten, if it remained patentable, what is the optimal policy to ensure that ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
The Association for Molecular Pathology had agitated against the existence and exclusive licensing
of the gene patent because of various kinds of legal threats to the medical practice. And this lead to
the landmark decision of the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. in
the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, Myriad Genetic and University of Utah Research Foundation,
which holding the BRCA1 gene patent previously, claimed that the work of isolating the DNA from
the body should made patentable. The Court of Appeal, making the gene patentable, reversed the
District Court's decision. The Association for Molecular Pathology then appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court. Considering the decision made in Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus
Laboratories Inc. , the requirement of making the natural phenomena patentable was now stricter,
with more restrictive rules.
3.Patent
3.1 What is Patent?
According to World Intellectual Property Organisation, patent is an exclusive right granted for an
invention, which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers a
new technical solution to a problem. The invention potentially owned an economical value, and the
patent granted was limited to twenty years to make, use and sell the patented invention. As a pay
back, the owner of the patent must publish the technical information about the invention to the
public.
3.2 Patent Law

Case Analysis: The Lego Group: Publish Or Protect?
Case analysis on "The LEGO Group: Publish or Protect?"
Introduction
The LEGO Group, as the third largest toy manufacturer worldwide, has long been popular and well
respected for its building system which employed interlocking bricks using a stud–and–tube
coupling system. In order to keep up with the continuing huge demand of strong volume growth of
such products, considerably high precision manufacturing process with decreased lead time and cost
deem necessary for driving the company success. Concept Center engineers had come up with
significant innovations on improving both the speed and precision of their manufacturing processes
such as plastic injection molding process which has boosted productivity and output greatly. Hence,
it is of upmost important to protect such inventions, as core competences, sufficiently so as to allow
the company to utilize them to the full. Several protection mechanisms, e.g. patent, trade secrets,
publication, etc., have been discussed and considered by top management of the LEGO Group.
The present paper aims at identifying pros and cons of each of the protection mechanisms and
recommending the most suitable methods for the LEGO Group and at the same time enable it to
enjoy its freedom to operate.
Protection Need ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On one hand, partnering with such supplier has offered the company the greatest freedom to operate.
One the other hand, technological spillover and inventions came up from the developmental stage
are also likely to occur. The worst case is that competitor might protect those inventions which
prevent the LEGO Group form using their own innovation. Protection of those inventions is deemed
necessary to the growth of the

Patent Protection Research Paper
How to File a Utility Patent
If you want to learn how to file a utility patent, you'll want to first consider your options. While you
can certainly file a utility patent on your own, you'll want to do your research to figure out if hiring a
patent attorney can help you be successful in your utility patent application.
A utility patent protects a product's method, manufacturing, and/or system that is used in the making
and use of the product. A majority of patent applications are in fact utility patent applications. With
that being said, this type of patent can be rather time consuming and costly to obtain. It will really
depend on the type of invention you have, and if you just want it patented within the United States
or internationally ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Many inventors benefit from filing for provisional patent protection if they have not yet completed
production of their invention or need additional time to determine next steps on their new invention.
Maybe you're an inventor who cannot afford to pay the costs associated with filing for patent
protection. In that case, you can pay a
nominal fee to obtain protection for one year after which point you will then have to decide if filing
for non–provisional protection is the next appropriate step.
For those who wish to obtain non–provisional protection without having filed an application for
provisional protection, you'll want to visit the USPTO website to first identify what steps are needed
when filing for protection. Now, you'll move onto
Step 3.
Step 3: Do Your Research
You'll want to do an extensive amount of research before filing for the non– provisional patent
application. You'll not only want to research the different types of fees you'll incur when filing for
protection, but you'll also want to familiarize yourself with the process – including the length of
time it could take to obtain protection, any potential issues you may face along the way, deadlines to
file, legal fees, and other professional fees should you choose to seek help when filing for
protection. General Fees. Remember that there are several

What Makes A Biological Patent?
ATENTING ORGANISM
"A biological patent is a patent on an invention in the field of biology that by law allows the patent
holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the protected invention for a
limited period of time. The scope and reach of biological patents vary among jurisdictions, and may
include biological technology and products, genetically modified organisms and genetic material.
The applicability of patents to substances and processes wholly or partially natural in origin is a
subject of debate."
This is how Wikipedia explains what a biological patent is. What is doesn't say is that when this
refers to a gene, this actually came from a living organism and was created by nature (God from the
beginning), yet when is patented, it becomes a human invention. What an irony!
The advances in technology in the biology field has been huge in the last ten years or so, which have
aloud doctors and scientist to manipulate nature, analyze it, change it and make it behave as we
wanted and needed. These advances have also allowed to create and to be able to fight diseases that
go from none–deathly to deathly and extreme. For most of the diseases known in the world, doctors
and scientist have found a cure or treatment, but there are quite a few still that we know little about,
don't know where they started, how they started, how to treat it, cure it, or stop it completely for that
matter.
Now a days, almost anything can be patent but it is important to

Ethics and the Patentability of Human Genes
Ethics and the Patentability of Human Genes
This paper will discuss the protection of intellectual property. It will tell how intellectual property is
protected and why it is important to protect. It will also discuss ethical issues that arise in dealing
with protecting intellectual property and whether or not protections can go" too far". Intellectual
property as described by Cornell University law school is "any product of the human intellect that
the law protects from unauthorized use by others" (2014). The copyright clause that is found in
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to "promote the progress of
science and useful arts". The promotion of science and useful arts is very important in ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
In essence patents create a monopoly on a product or invention for a limited period of time (Lau &
Johnson, 2013)
The protection of intellectual property is important because, without it individuals and companies
would be less likely to invest their time or money in new ideas. If the company puts a lot of money
into research and development of a new surgical procedure for knee replacements, it would not be
fair if a different company could just use their idea. There would be no financial gain to encourage
companies to spend the time and money developing new procedures.
Intellectual property needs to be protected. However, it is possible to go too far in protecting it.
There is also the question of ethics. For example, the patenting of higher life forms, to lots of
people, is not ethical. A recent case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics raises
the question of taking a patent too far and whether or not it is ethical to do so.
Myriad Genetics of Utah claims that it owns rights to any testing to find the BRCA1 and BRCA2
genes (Stiglitz, 2013). The presence of the gene shows an increased risk of developing breast or
ovarian cancer. Testing for these genes has the potential to save many lives. The test through myriad
genetics, costs $3000, which is far more than many women can afford (Stiglitz). Yale University was
going to offer the test at a substantially lower cost (Stiglitz). However, myriad genetics claimed

The Pros And Cons Of Biogen Insufficiency
One issue to can be traced to Lidaret,[ ] is the idea of disclosure in a patent design specification and
this is as a result of the law of insufficiency; the concern of the patentee's is to make available in a
contractual sense a quid pro quo for patent monopoly to the public at large.[ ] This universal theory
model of insufficiency later advanced and recognised by the United kingdom and further shaped its
Statutory Law.[ ] which raises appositely as a ground for revocation the law of insufficiency.[ ] The
prerequisite of this is that any claim of invention shall establish an enabling disclosure in a patent
specification[ ] and therefore, a requirement is considered lacking if a person skilled in the art that
trails the precise teaching ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Kitchen J, the learned friend of Lord Hoffman therefore got it wrong and erred when he likened the
germane technical contribution to the process rather than to the product, for the reason that the
Biogen insufficiency does not relate and apply to simple product claims in which the technical
contribution of the invention is the product itself,[ ] even in a situation where there is only a method
is there to create it, is made available and shown in the patent specification.[ ] With regards to the
Biogen insufficiency, Lord Hoffman clarified further that the legal provisions and the EPC statutes
mentioned earlier will not certainly lead to the assumption and conclusion that simple product
claims must as well aid and support all other methods and processes of creating the product.[

Essay On Interpersonal Therapy
Living the life pleasantly while removing any sign of alcoholism The addiction to alcohol is one of
the lots of forms of habit that can happen to every age, as of adolescent to adults. Curing for
alcoholics has been developed through numerous doctors and psychiatrists to assist these people
defeat their habit to alcohol. Group psychotherapy is a type of psychotherapy inside which
individual or more therapists care for a small amount of clients collectively as a group. The phrase
can legally refer to any shape of psychotherapy while delivered within a group format, counting
Cognitive behavioral treatment or else Interpersonal therapy. Therapy of Interpersonal one is
typically applied to psychodynamic therapy wherever the group perspective along with group
procedure ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
You can in fact look into on the internet in which you can get plentiful stores providing this mobility
scooter in a variety of designs along with colours. You might interpret buyer ratings about the thing
before you choose to buy on the internet. In the meantime, you can moreover stop off shops nearby
to seek the mobility scooter you possibly will need. The rates of mobility scooter are so unique
because of the individual functions. It will be likely to run into a small number of these small
scooters at additional reasonable values thus far through every the same attributes to those costly
ones. Repeatedly, the technique, the size along with features has influences on top of the prices. It is
quite simple to position the one which could wholly suit your elected funds. Alternatively, the
scooters by larger prices often add in extra features just like a great deal less difficult operation on
top of additional components. The vehicle through faster speed ability is an immense selection in
heading for flea markets along with local shops around your

Howell Jewelry Case
The Howell Jewelry company has a right to press charges against Ms. Lawson for breach of
covenant. The Howell Company has the signed agreement that was presented to Ms. Lawson at the
time of her hiring which she violated when she was terminated from the company for excessive
tardiness. In sum, noncompetition agreements can be valid and enforceable in New Hampshire,
provided they are carefully drawn to meet the legal requirements of the test of reasonableness and
generally to protect the legitimate interests of the employer as well as being provided to the
employee in advance. (Mansfield, B. D.,2016). Howell industries will win this case in court. In the
suit about fraudulent inducement, Ms. Lawson has no case in this matter considering she ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Lawson for their patent infringement case against Howell Jewelry. Howell Jewelry will lose the
patent case because the memo will surface as an incriminating document in discovery of the lawsuit.
Howell will have to abandon their new process and make arrangements for repayment of loss
revenue to Greene. The public opinion in this case will side with Greene damaging the reputation of
Howell's business. Howell should resolve the patent infringement before going to court. The number
of patent application is growing steadily,1 and we can easily hear the news of patent wars in global
business, such as "Apple vs. Samsung" and "Microsoft vs. Motorola." Even a firm called a "patent
troll" which collects patents and makes profits from the litigation against the infringement has
appeared in the market. The patent holders, however, do not always win the trial; roughly a half of
all litigated patents are found to be invalid.2 Furthermore, not every conflict over patent rights
involves a lawsuit. In fact, a majority of the disputes are settled; some of them are resolved
peacefully before they go to court, and others are settled in the middle of the trial. Given these
various scenarios, it is natural to attempt to integrate a series of events regarding patent rights and to
clarify the mechanism behind them. (Jeon, H.

Plagiarism And Intellectual Property Of The Academia And...
Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in the Academia and Software Industry
The many consequences
Daniel Choe
Student from University of Utah
United States stradius101@gmail.com Abstract – This paper discusses plagiarism and its many dire
consequences in the realm of the computer science academia as well as the software industry.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plagiarism is an issue that cannot be taken likely both in the academia and the software industry.
The consequences of plagiarism are widespread and the issues that follow can be personal,
professional, ethical, financial and legal. Plagiarism is not only destructive to the individual who
committed the infraction, but can also be damaging to one's teammates, company, educational
institution, as well as possibly thousands or millions who rely on the software. As a result, it is
important to iterate the severe consequences as well as the negative impacts that can and will occur
from plagiarism to increase prevention of such cases as well as to properly understand what is
considered to be an infraction and to take care of avoiding infractions.
II. ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT IN THE ACADEMIA
A. Background
The number of students enrolled in computer science courses have never been higher. This trend is
most likely attributed to the field's job prospects as well as the realization of the importance in
understanding computer science in this modern tech era.
Unfortunately, the number of students caught cheating in computer science courses is

The Professional Standards Board For Patent And Trademark...
Introduction.
The Professional Standards Board for Patent and Trademark Attorneys (PSB) has received a
complaint against Michael Masri (Masri) and Julie Chun (Chun).
The PSB is to decide if disciplinary proceedings are warranted against Masri & Chun before the
Patents and Trade Marks Disciplinary Tribunal (PTMDT).
The professional conduct of Masri and Chen is discussed in relation to the Patents Regulations 1991
(Cth) and Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys .
Breaches are discussed together with the procedures of the PSB in deciding if there is likelihood that
either Masri and/or Chen will be found in breach of either of these regulations. Specifically, Chapter
20 Part 8 the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and Part 3 Section 15 (8) of Code of Conduct for
Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys.
Facts.
1) The Firm acts for a multi–national commercial cleaning equipment company, Clean Space
Limited (CleanSpace), and Australian domestic appliance company Smart Home Pty Ltd
(SmartHome).
2) The Firm handles objections and drafting amendments in respect of the patents drafted offshore
for CleanSpace.
3) The two companies operate in different areas – SmartHome in domestic appliances – CleanSpace
in commercial cleaning equipment.
4) Masri is a partner of The Firm (The Firm) with12 partners and 40 employees, has 25 years post
registration experience as a patent attorney and is responsible for CleanSpace.
5) Chun is employed by The Firm as a registered

Critique Of Pozzoli Case: Inventive Step Test
Critique of Pozzoli case (Inventive step test)
Introduction
A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way
of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general
must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in
S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of
industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element
of novelty, must show "an inventive step", and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act,
1970 defines "inventive step" as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as
compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the
invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for
new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the
requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common
general knowledge that exists while ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This case dealt with an invention relating to a windsurfing board. A patent had been granted to the
plaintiff for the invention of windsurfing board. The plaintiffs challenged the defendants for
infringing the patent. The defendants on the other hand counterclaimed for revocation of the patent
on the grounds that the claimed invention was obvious and lacked novelty. The Court held that the
patent was invalid based on prior use and prior publication. The Court found that the invention in
question was an obvious improvement and that a person skilled in the art could anticipate the design
of the surfing board. The Court laid down the following tests to be followed while assessing
inventive

Patent Violations Among High Tech Companies
Patent violations among high–tech companies have increasingly become popular in this industry, as
fact that is not common in other industries. This happens mainly because there is something inherent
within the industry that is certainly common among many high–tech firms. As such, these
companies keep suing one another alluding this to patent violations. The key drive of the industry is
technological innovations and every firm in the industry is battling to remain feasible in the industry
and outdo its competitors by staying ahead in terms of coming up with new ideas and materializing
theme into adorable features that are incorporated in many electronic gadgets. According to Comino
and Manenti (2014), ideas among high–tech companies are ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Clarkson, Miller, and Cross (2014) agree that sometimes, these high–tech companies think alike in a
manner that they end up producing products that have similar features only to end up with a series of
patent litigations. This has raised issues over anti–competitive behaviors with some countries and
organizations threatening to sue these high–tech companies to stop them from waging wars against
themselves with weekly patent litigations, which in reality lead to big losses among consumers.
Patent laws in the computer industry revolve around software and computer–implemented
inventions. As Clarkson, Miller, and Cross (2014) explain, these laws are endorsed and enforced
with a sole aim of providing monopoly rights to a firm in relation to an idea or an invention that has
been proved to be new and need to be protected to avoid patent violation. Pending to the approval of
an idea or invention as being original, it cannot be granted the patent rights, which means that the
idea is not patentable and therefore in the eyes of the law, it does not exist. However, if an idea or
invention is approved as original and certified as patentable, the law provides that the idea or the
invention ought to be protected by granting the firm proved to be the originator of the idea all the
necessary monopoly rights to protect the idea from being

Supreme Court Case: Alice Corp. Vs. 35 US
I. Introduction
The Supreme Court's Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision changed the scope of patent
subject matter eligibility under § 101. Since the Supreme Court's decision, the patent litigation fora
has seen a significant increase in the number of motions to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
II. Alice and the Creation of the § 101 Rabbit Hole
In the United States, patent–eligible subject matter includes four statutory categories as defined by
35 U.S.C. § 101 of the U.S. Code. Specifically, these four categories include "any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof." In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l further
expanded ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
§ 101. However, since the Supreme Court's Alice decision on June 19, 2014, through May 31, 2016,
district courts have issued 97 decisions on these types of motions. This is nearly a 400% increase in
the total number of motions to dismiss filed since Alice. By a mere glance of the statistical data, one
can see the rising number of motions to dismiss based on invalidation of claims directed to patent–
ineligible concepts is the direct result of the Supreme Court's Alice decision in mid–2014. In
addition to the fact that the two and a half years prior to Alice, district courts decided only 20
decisions on these motions, the total number of these motions experienced a downward trend each
year prior to Alice. In 2013, district courts saw a decrease of 30% in the total number of these
motions filed compared to 2012. Similarly, in the first half of 2014, district courts saw a decrease in
the total number of these motions filed compared to

Summary And Background Of Stryker Corporation
Summary and Background Currently, Stryker Corporation is in a law suit centered on patent
infringement with their competitor, Zimmer Corporation. The case which will be analyzed and
explored is currently pending hearing by the Supreme Court. The current questions that the
petitioners, Stryker, are asking of the Supreme Court are as follows: "1. Has the Federal Circuit
improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced
damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two–part test, when this Court
recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for
attorneys' fee awards in exceptional cases? 2. Does a district court have discretion under 35 U.S.C. §
284 to award enhanced damages where an infringer intentionally copied a direct competitor's
patented invention, knew the invention was covered by multiple patents, and made no attempt to
avoid infringing the patents on that invention?" (SCOTUS Blog, 2015) Stryker is petitioning the
Supreme Court to explore these questions, because prior to Supreme Court filing, there had been a
series of lawsuits and appeals between the plaintiff, Stryker, and defendants, Zimmer. The
preliminary suit was focused on infringement of pulse lavage medical devices. Stryker and Zimmer
are the two main developers and manufacturers of this medical device noted in the suit. Medical
pulse lavage systems are complicated devices which are used by a surgeon

Intellectual and Patent Infringement between Apple and...
Intellectual and Patent Infringement between Apple and Samsung
Introduction
Intellectual Property Concepts: Patents, Trade Mark, Trade Secret and Copyright
The modern economy is principally technology–driven. Technology products are normally creations
of the mind. They entail unique techniques, products, or brands. In order to protect their own
investment, entrepreneurs need to safeguard these creations because they are intellectual property.
Intellectual property is the mind's product, but can be manifested physically. Therefore, its concept
behind it can be copied or transferred. These concepts need to be protected by law. There are four
major kinds of intellectually property, all which have some legal protection. These include patents,
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They also indicate sponsorship and authorization. They also differentiate a company's products from
those of competitors. Trademarks also show value and image as an effort to create a notion of
quality or uniqueness in the mind of the customer. Trademark infringement takes place when there is
chance of confusion between two products or services offered by different companies (Knudson,
2006). Trademarks are usually a crucial element of company's marketing strategy and therefore need
to be selected carefully and safeguarded consistently against all possible violators. Copyrights are
used in protection of artistic works like books, plays, films, music, paintings, or computer software.
Copyright infringement entails use of such works either in part of whole without prior permission of
their owners, or without acknowledging the source (Knudson, 2006). Trade secret refers to any
intellectual property that grants its holder a competitive edge over the competitors. It includes any
information which may in from of a formula, pattern, compilation, program, technique, process that
derives sovereign economic value from not being known. Unlike patents which protect the original
inventor regardless of the source of subsequent inventions, trade secrets are not safeguarded
(Knudson, 2006). Further, a person can dismantle a product in order to uncover a trade secret
without infringement through a process known as reverse engineering. However,

UPR Censorship Summary
In the case of industrial sponsorship where the sponsor acquires license rights, UPR usually must
seek approval of the sponsor prior to releasing its ownership rights in favor of the inventor or author.
D. "Significant Use"
The "Significant Use" of UPR resources/support/facilities by faculty is a key factor in the
determination of ownership of patentable intellectual property under the terms and conditions of
employment of all UPR campus/unit Employees.
However, "Significant Use" is NOT a consideration in determining ownership of inventions by any
UPR faculty as a part of or a continuation of federally sponsored research, because the Bayh–Dole
Act provides for University ownership in such cases.
When an invention is developed by UPR faculty, students, staff, visitors or others covered within
this Manual,participating in UPR programs using significant UPR funds or facilities, UPR will own
said invention. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
UPR does not construe the use of office, library, machine shop or personal desktop work stations
and communication and storage servers as constituting "Significant Use" of UPR space or facilities.
Textbooks developed in conjunction with class teaching are also excluded from the "Significant
Use" category, unless such textbooks were developed using UPR administered funds paid
specifically to support textbook development.
Generally, an invention will not be considered to have been developed using UPR funds or facilities
if:
(1) only a minimal amount of unrestricted funds have been used;

Non Discriminatory Requirement Policy Statement Essay
Non–Obviousness Requirement Policy Statement
Name
Abdulrahman Alfhiadi
Non– Obviousness Requirement Policy Statement
1.0 General Policy Statement
In essence, the Department of Technology acknowledges that people are still pursuing new ideas,
discoveries, and inventions, which are essential for commercial application, problem–solving, and
of general importance to the society. It is the interest of the state to encourage the development of
new technological ideas and discoveries that are a product of individual or collective research. On
this note, it is imperative to acknowledge and accredit the innovator by offering the appropriate
patent protection. However, in pursuit of this objective, there is a need of reducing the inventions to
practical applications so that adequate recognition and the incentive is accorded to the appropriate
inventors, which will enable them to share the rightful proceeds from their efforts. Accordingly, the
policy published herewith is to be established to out a cutline on the patentable and distinct
inventions. In this line, it becomes evident that the role of the patenting authority is not only to
collect the costs of the patent program but also to support useful inventions.
1.2 Patent Policy Objectives
The primary goal of the Patent Policy includes the following:
1. To promote innovative research, creative technology development, encourage the spirit of inquiry
for the realization of new ideas, inventions, and furthering

The Invention Essay
So You've Just Come Up With A Million Dollar Idea – Now What?
While there is no set formula on how a would–be inventor can take their great idea from mind to
manufacturing, there are some things they must be aware of and some steps they simply must take
as they move forward. If you think you have one of those great ideas, set aside all celebrations for
the time being and start taking real action toward making the idea a productive and profitable reality.
Be warned, though: this isn't going to be easy.
1. Ask Yourself Some Serious Questions
It's very important to keep your feet on the ground, even if you feel you've reinvented the wheel in
spectacular fashion. An idea itself is worthless until proven in many ways, but that can be ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When talking to potential partners, you're likely to get more valuable feedback on setting up a
company, manufacturing, distribution and other important elements of a startup.
A second (third, fourth and beyond) opinion should provide you with affirmation that your idea has
value, beyond what you've imagined thus far. These outside opinions help you to chisel your idea
into something with real–world applicability. Also, be prepared for the naysayers, who, although
discouraging at first, can also give you useful information.
3. Analyze Development And Production Costs
It's one thing to create a homemade prototype, quite another to put it into real production. How
much is it going to cost to perfect your prototype enough to actually manufacture it? How much will
it cost to produce each unit and who can handle that for you? Ideas are typically modified in the
development stage, meaning your original idea may evolve into something different or even spawn
two or more spinoff ideas, equally valuable and worth pursuing.
Although the technical aspects of bringing an invention to the production stage are tedious and
challenging, this is a crucial stage for you and will determine the economic feasibility of moving
forward. You need to figure out who you can trust, where your startup capital is going to come from
and whether or not you should form some type of company now. Depending on your educational
level

Sample Resume : Code Of Conduct Problem Essay
77905 Spring 2016 Assessment 2
Code of Conduct Problem
Introduction.
The Professional Standards Board for Patent and Trademark Attorneys (PSB) has received a
complaint against Michael Masri (Masri) and Julie Chun (Chun). The background to this complaint
will be detailed further from paragraphs 5 to 15.
The PSB is to decide if disciplinary proceedings need to be taken against Masri & Chun before the
Patents and Trade Marks Disciplinary Tribunal (PTMDT).
The professional conduct of Masri and Chen will be discussed in relation to the Patents Regulations
1991 (Cth) and Code of Conduct for Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys .
Breaches will be discussed together with the procedures of the PSB in deciding if there is likelihood
that either Masri or Chen or both will be found in breach of either of these regulations. Specifically,
Chapter 20 Part 8 the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and Part 3 Section 15 of Code of Conduct for
Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys.
Facts.
1) The Firm acts for a multi–national commercial cleaning equipment company, Clean Space
Limited (CleanSpace), and Australian domestic appliance company Smart Home Pty Ltd
(SmartHome).
2) The Firm has a longstanding favourable relationship with both companies, the drafting of
CleanSpace 's specifications is mainly done offshore.
3) The Firm handles objections and drafting amendments in respect of the offshore patents drafted
offshore for CleanSpace.
4) The two companies mostly operate in different areas –

The Design And Aesthetic Appeal
The design and aesthetic appeal between the two models was uncanny. "Patented features such as
"rubber–banding," in which a screen image bounces slightly when a user tries to scroll past the
bottom, were identical. Same with "pinch to zoom," which allows users to manipulate image size by
pinching the thumb and forefinger together on the screen. And on and on." We look at Samsung's
record of patent infringement, among other ruthless business tactics, and explains why "Apple might
win the battles but still lose the war." Samsung threatened if any claims for patent infringement were
thrown their way they would retaliate with the same charges. "If Apple executives pursued a claim
against Samsung for stealing the iPhone, Samsung would come right back at them with a theft claim
of its own. The battle lines were drawn. In the months and years that followed, Apple and Samsung
would clash on a scale almost unprecedented in the business world, costing the two companies more
than a billion dollars and engendering millions of pages of legal papers, multiple verdicts and
rulings, and more hearings."
Patent infringement is unlawful and thus there is a necessary obligation to avoid it. Samsung was
found guilty on 6 of the 7 patent infringement cases and Apple was awarded 600 million dollars in
damages from Samsung for the infringement battle, however Samsung essentially won the war. The
Samsung brand had become a household name, with a huge percentage of the industry's consumers
loyal to

Case 2 Research in Motion Essay
In this case we will be talking about the company RIM (Research in Motion) and some of the
Challenges they faced to protect their Intellectual Property. Research in Motion is best known as the
developer of the Blackberry smartphone. Research in Motion was involved on several Patent
Litigation with the different competitors. On 1999 Glenayre Technologies (formerly known as
Glenayre Electonics) filed a patent infringement suit against RIM claiming that the Inter@ctive
pager line used Glenayre's power–generation from dual battery process. This litigation caused a
delay on RIM's contract renewal with the BellSouth company and also their quarterly earnings
report came with lower than expected results. In order to get new customers RIM ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
NPT attorneys discovered that the SAM version they were showing was not the vintage version of it
was an updated version which was released after NTP's invention. This case was so big that almost
cause a shutdown to Blackberry systems on the US. In March 2005 both companies tried to reach an
agreement that will make RIM to pay $450 million dollars, the negotiations broke down due to other
issues. The US Department of Defense filed a brief to allow RIM's service to be allowed on the US
due to the large number of users on the United States Federal Government. Later on 2006 they
finally agreed to a settlement and RIM agreed to pay a sum of $612 million USD. On July 2003,
while still involved on the NTP and Good Technology lawsuits, they also filed a suit against Xerox
filed as a response to some patent discussions made by Xerox that could have affected RIM. Almost
two months after the agreement settled with NTP, Visto sued RIM for infringement of four patents.
And recently on January 2010 Motorola requested to ban all of the Blackberry phones from being
imported into the US and filed a lawsuit claiming that they have infringed on multiple patent. RIM
already won a case to Motorola on the UK but they are still fighting with Motorola about this in the
US. This case

Product Of Nature And The Patent Law
PATENT LAW PROJECT
ON
THE ISSUE OF 'PRODUCT OF NATURE ' IN PATENT LAW
SUBMITTED BY:
POORVI SHAH
FOURTH YEAR
SECTION–A
ID– 211035
WBNUJS
THE ISSUE OF 'PRODUCT OF NATURE ' IN PATENT LAW
INTRODUCTION
There exist several areas where further research and development is essential to promote the
longevity of mankind and enhance the quality of life, and since the aim of the patent system is to
promote innovation, it incentivises the same by looking after the financial aspect of the research
through funds and research grants. At the same time, certain domains of extremely important
research, requiring heavy funding, fall into the patent–ineligible category, hit by one or more of the
clauses of the patent related ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A CHRONOLOGY OF SELECTIVE JUDGEMENTS ON PRODUCT OF NATURE
A product of nature could be understood as something which exists in nature and the invention or
discovery of which is bereft of significant human intervention. Ex parte Latimer was one of the
earlier cases which disallowed for a patent for a natural product. The Judge opined that the fibre for
which a patent was requested existed in a natural state in the needles of the Australian pine and its
existence was also known of. However, a couple of decades later, in Parke–Davis & Co. v. H.K.
Mulford Co., a purified version of adrenaline was found to be patent eligible by Judge Hand, who
stressed on the difference in kind, not in degree. The US Supreme Court found an aggregation of
naturally occurring non–inhibitive microorganisms to be lacking for a patent . While the Court
accepted that the combination was a step forward and useful, the fact remained that the state of
inhibition was its natural state and had nothing to do with human intervention, and hence, this
naturally occurring phenomena ought to be part of the common knowledge for all men.
One of the major cases , post the enactment of the 1952 Patents Act held that there was nothing in
the wording of the statute that disqualified a

Npe's Argumentative Essay
Patents are legal guarantees to exclusive rights to new products and software patents specifically are
crucial for anyone pursuing a niche in technology. Within the last few decades, attention has been
brought to the issue of increasing quantities of software patent infringement litigation being
contested in court. Of the many plaintiffs who file against infringers, Non Practicing Entities or
NPE's are publicly considered the worst offenders because they do not manufacture or offer any
services. Many see this increasing quantity of filings as a sign that NPE's are maliciously taking
advantage of a burdened patent system and call for reform of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office to restrict NPE's from filing patent applications and

Case Analysis : § 101
§101 cases are a particularly vexing subject for currently practicing patent attorneys. Specifically,
there is a high state of flux with respect to patentable subject matter, causing uncertainty not only for
attorneys, but also for inventors, investors, and engineers, whose life blood depends upon the patent
system. A "101 conundrum" has resulted from Supreme Court's creation of ineligible categories of
patentable subject matter. These categories are: abstract ideas, laws of nature, and naturally
occurring substances . The Supreme Court has neglected to define these categories , and attempts to
define them have been rejected . While determining whether a claimed invention is directed to an
ineligible category or not should be binary and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
v. Activision Publ., Inc. Part III provides two historical backgrounds. In the first background of (A),
I draw parallels to the Court's current jurisprudence on §101 and the Court's jurisprudence prior to
the enactment of §103. The second background in (B) is comprised of a detailed history of the
ineligible categories and reveals some of the themes that have arisen in the cases. This brief history
of patent law specifically pinpoints the genesis of problematic language utilized in Alice and the
uncertain implications. In Part IV, I address some of the inconsistencies created by the cases outlined
in Part III (B) and attempt to answer some of the key questions raised. At the end of Part IV, I
introduce a more qualitative standard for approaching the all–important question of whether subject
matter is patent eligible under §101. In Part V, I address recent developments in the law.
Specifically, I explain the Court's reasoning in Mcro, and how it could have benefitted from a more
rigorous standard instead of relying on outdated precedent. Lastly, I address the first Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision following Alice: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu LLC and
highlight the impact of this decision and how it will hurt not only so–called "patent trolls", but small
inventors as well.
I. ALICE AND ITS IMPACT
The Supreme Court established the most recent §101 framework in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int'l. In

Jaffe V. Samsung Elecs
Jaffé v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
Qimonda AG, a German semiconductor manufacturer, had patent cross licenses with many of its
competitors. Such licenses, in industries like electronics, allow parties in effect to have a truce with
respect to patents, so that they may proceed their respective businesses. Qimonda file bankruptcy
and ceased operations, so no longer needed the protection of the cross licenses. Rather, it terminated
the licenses under German bankruptcy law, to replace them with licenses under which it would
receive royalty payments. Qimonda filed a chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States, to
do the same with its American licenses. The representative "committed to re–license Qimonda 's
patent portfolio to the Licensees at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory ("RAND") royalty."
However, the American courts held that US bankruptcy law did not allow licenses. Chapter 15 of the
Bankruptcy Code allows the representative of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding to file an ancillary
proceeding in the United States. It also allows broad recognition of orders entered in the foreign
bankruptcy proceeding. But the recognition is subject to certain safeguards. The US bankruptcy
court may refuse to apply the foreign order if "the action would be manifestly contrary to the public
policy of the United States." In addition, the court must ensure that "the interests of the creditors and
other interested entities, including the debtor, are sufficiently protected."

Software Patents and Piracy in China Essay
Software Patents and Piracy in China
Abstract
Software patents raise a lot of issues during the development of IT industry. As a legal action in
protecting the ownership and intellectual property, software patents are applied to a wide range of
codes, from source code, processes to OS, etc. It "provide exclusive rights to the patent holder to use
and profit from the product or process in question." 1 This paper will discuss the general
background and effects of software patents. After presenting its current law and situation in China
and US, the Microsoft vs. Ju Ren Co. case shows the difference between these two regions. It
suggests that enforcing intellectual property still has a long way to go in China. From ethical point
of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Then a patent search will be performed through patent database. After passing the evaluation of the
commercial potential of this invention, it will be patented. This patent will then be legally protected
by US law. If the patent process is filed in other countries, for example, China, the ownership should
also be protected by the local Chinese government.
China has achieved great success in economic reform in the last ten years. The increasing foreign
investment, especially in high–tech, has made China one of the biggest market for the sale and
licensing of IPR products. During the period 1993 to 1997 alone, high–tech related foreign
investments in China has reached a total of $185.8 billion.2 However, IPR protection in China is
still way behind US. The most common problem is piracy. Software piracy refers to the illegal or
unauthorized copying of software. In a sense it is ethical equivalent to pirates' attacking ships in
public water. "The International Intellectual Property Alliance estimates that millions of pirated
DVDs worth $160 million, and $47 million worth of fake CDs and cassettes were sold in China in
2001,"6 In this paper two cases will be analyzed in ethical and legal perspectives of patent and
piracy.
Case Study: Pirate CD salesman is arrested
The case
In Jiangsu Province, the southern part of China, it is not surprising to find pirate

The Mayo Collaborative Services And Mayo Clinic Rochester
In 2004 Mayo Collaborative Services and Mayo Clinic Rochester (Mayo) announced that they
would be releasing a diagnostic test that utilizes thiopurine drugs to treat autoimmune diseases.
Mayo's announcement came after they had purchased and utilized similar diagnostic tests based on
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (Prometheus) patents. After Mayo's Prometheus sued Mayo claiming
patent infringement. This paper will examine the Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc. case that refers to the patent infringement law. We will examine both sides of the
case by exploring Diamond v. Diehr, Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America,
Bilski v. Kappos, and Parker v. Flook's relationship with the case. This paper will ultimately
conclude in favor of Mayo because Prometheus' patents effectively claim natural laws and are
therefore not patent eligible.
Prometheus holds two patents that relate to the claim in question, which utilize thiopurine drugs to
treat autoimmune diseases. Since patients metabolize these drugs at different rates doctors found it
difficult to decipher if a specific dosage was too high, potentially causing harmful side effects, or
too low, potentially rendering the drug ineffective. What Prometheus research found was a
correlation between metabolite levels and likelihood of harm or ineffectiveness. Their patent
claimed "(1) an "administering" step–instructing a doctor to ad¬minister the drug to his patient–(2) a
"determining"

Why University Patenting Is Not Common
University patenting was frowned upon because it was seen as inappropriate commercial activity.
Therefore it was quite uncommon and any patenting done was often done by individuals through the
university, and an outside organization, the Research Corporation, would handle the patenting
policies. Part of the reason why university patenting was not common was because the federal patent
policy was unclear. Some argued for a government–title policy, which would give the government
credit for the invention since it was funded by the argument. Others argued for a government–
license policy, which would give rights to the inventor's organization despite the fact that the project
was funded by the government. A uniform policy was never agreed upon ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the case of university patents, the problem was that of technology transfer, moving inventions and
technology created in universities to the marketplace. The three phases involved in the construction
of the institution of university patenting were the formation of a proto–institution by a skilled actor,
the development and growth of a professional community, and finally the Bayh–Dole Act. The
success of the institutionalization of university patenting was due to the social skill and resources
utilized to elicit collective action. The proto–institution created by the Health of Education and
Welfare's (HEW) Institutional Patent Agreements (IPA) was the start of increasing university
patenting. A proto–institution is a weak version of an institution in that its goals are often narrowly
focused, but has the potential to become an institution. HEW established an IPA waiving all
inventions sponsored by Hew so that universities would not have to go through the hassle of
applying for individual waivers and could simply apply for a single IPA instead. However not many
IPAs were filed and approved because HEW did not think universities needed to patent inventions
since these universities were supposed to serve the public. However, Norman Latker, the first patent
counsel who worked for the National Institute of Health, changed IPAs. He tended to favor the
government–license policy, believing that the government was incapable of managing patent

The Patent Infringement And The Judicial Present Situation
5.China's patent indirect infringement system legislation and the judicial present situation
As mentioned above, China has not set up the patent indirect infringement system, but the debate on
the doctrine of indirect infringement of patent has been going on for many years.
5.3 indirect infringement of patent in judicial practice
Phenomenons of indirect patent infringement in China have become increasingly serious,
however，as mentioned above，the system of indirect infringement is not prescribed in Chinese
patent law, therefore，although there have been a number of judicial practice of indirect patent
infringement cases, there are still no general rules， the trial basis of indirect patent infringement
cases in courts across the country is inconsistent. Many judges use Article 130 of the General
Principles of the Civil Law and Article 148 of the Supreme People 's Court 's (SPC) Opinions on
Several Issues Relating to the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law as trial
basis, while others follow indirect infringement of patent principles directly to judge infringement.
Three particular cases will be described in detail below.
5.3.1 Case1: Taiyuan Heavy Machinery Plant v. Taiyuan Electronic System Engineering Corporation
In this case, The plaintiff , Taiyuan Heavy Machinery Plant (HMP) was offered an utility model
patent ZL85203717 of "magnetic–mirror type direct current electric arc furnace" in August 1986. In
February 1992, one of HMP's service inventors

Intellectual Property And Patents In The Smartphone Industry

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Ashley Thomas

More from Ashley Thomas (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Intellectual Property And Patents In The Smartphone Industry