patent law

The justices sent the case back to a lower court to reassess the proper amount of damages.
The U.S. invests more than $32 billion each year in drug and biomedical research. Why doesn't the federal government then ensure reasonable prices for drugs developed with public funds -- an appropriate return on the public's investment?
Senator John Cornyn, Rackspace, and CEO-General Council Kevin Fiur share their insights on a few impending policies that will liberate the entrepreneur... or facilitate idea stealing.
It's an Elon Musk world, and we're just living in it. Before we bow down to a seemingly fearless and altruistic pioneer of electric vehicles and libertarianism, it's important to point out the ongoing contradictions with Musk and markets.
Tesla Motors is freeing up its 200 patents to electric car competitors, throwing automotive analysts into a frenzy. But CEO Elon Musk is just following the profitable open source road paved by Salesforce, Facebook and Apple.
Carter Driscoll, a senior tech analyst at investment bank MLV & Co., told HuffPost that Tesla could be trying to entice innovators
Whatever course it chooses to take, Congress should stop those that want to undercut American innovation, particularly in the midst of a fragile economic recovery.
Congress should consider amending the patent law to appoint ethical representatives to the PTO. Its present staff, given their alternative professional backgrounds and competing professional responsibilities, cannot reasonably be expected to account for the relevant methodology and literature.
The jury is still out about how the new system is affecting companies with potentially novel inventions. But one thing is for sure: First to file is forcing inventors to be smarter and quicker about how they approach their intellectual property.
Patents have been in the news a lot recently, both as incentives to eye-popping acquisitions and as clubs used to "stifle
The Supreme Court's decision about today's case will either extend or crimp the capacity of patients, doctors, researchers and other biotechnology firms, to use information about the human body to detect and treat other illnesses in the future.
But what if you want to incentivize investment in bold new drugs instead of me-too drugs? What if you want to encourage research into new areas that tangibly improve people's health? Then maybe, like India, you would only grant patents when that higher standard is met.
We speak to HuffPost Politics reporter Sabrina Siddiqui about recent calls by economists to abolish the U.S. patent system.
Skepticism about the United States patent system has hit historic highs. Even groups without an obvious interest in technology policy have joined the skeptics, such as the ACLU. But is this alarm warranted? Even more importantly, is it dangerous?
One of the most complex and daunting challenges facing competition regulators is the evolving intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law.
Punishing those willing to share technology will be a giant step backwards in the race to create the new products consumers need.
Last September, our esteemed leaders in Washington passed a law reforming America's patent system called the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. At the time, the promise from every politician in support of the Act was that it would create jobs.
While I would never -- and have never -- advocated for abolishing the patent system, because that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water, we do need to fix our patent system so that it rewards innovation, not manipulation.
it is critically important to the success of our patent system that it maintain high patent quality and ensures only deserving patents are issued. Unfortunately, the American patent system today is suffering from extremely low patent quality.