Foam-in-place materials for high voltage insulation in a space environment

Dielectric polyurethane foam materials tested for high voltage insulation in space environmen

Low-speed wind-tunnel investigation of wing fins as trailing-vortex-alleviation devices on a transport airplane model

The trailing-vortex-alleviation effectiveness of both a one- and a two-fin configuration (semicircular with a radius of 0.043 semispan) on a jumbo-jet transport airplane model in its landing configuration was investigated in the Langley V/STOL tunnel, by the trailing-wing sensor technique. The fins were located on the upper surface of the transport model wing along the 30-percent-chord line. The fin configurations were effective in reducing the vortex-induced rolling moment, by amounts varying from 28 to 60 percent, on the trailing wing model located at a distance of 7.8 transport model wing spans downstream of the transport model. The flow over the fins and over the transport airplane model wing downstream of the fins was observed to be separated and turbulent. All fin configurations caused a reduction in maximum lift coefficient, a positive increment in drag coefficient, and an increment in nose-up pitching-moment coefficient on the transport airplane model

The Supreme Court\u27s Quiet Revolution in Induced Patent Infringement

The Supreme Court over the last decade or so has reengaged with patent law. While much attention has been paid to the Court’s reworking of what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and enhancing tools to combat “patent trolls,” what many have missed is the Court’s reworking of the contours of active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Court has taken the same number of § 271(b) cases as subject matter eligibility cases—four. Yet this reworking has not garnered much attention in the literature. This Article offers the first comprehensive assessment of the Court’s efforts to define active inducement. In so doing, it identifies the surprising significance of the Court’s most recent case, Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., where the Court held that a good faith belief on the part of the accused inducer that the relevant patent is invalid cannot negate the mental state required for inducement—the intent to induce acts of infringement. In so doing, the Court moved away from its policy of encouraging challenges to patent validity as articulated in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins and its progeny. This step away from Lear is significant and surprising, particularly where critiques of the patent system suggest there are too many invalid patents creating issues for competition. This Article critiques these aspects of Commil and then addresses lingering, unanswered questions. In particular, this Article suggests that a good faith belief that the induced acts are not infringing, which remains as a defense, should only act as a shield against past damages and not against prospective relief such as injunctions or ongoing royalties. The courts so far have failed to appreciate this important temporal dynamic

Should Foreign Patent Law Matter?

One of the most controversial issues in American law today is the extent to which it is appropriate for courts to consider foreign law when deciding issues of United States law. The debate has engaged the courts, Congress, and commentators, leading to discussions about completely banning references to non-United States law by courts. The reality is, however, that the United States courts often have to address or apply foreign law

Patent Prior Art and Possession

Prior art in patent law defines the set of materials that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and courts use to determine whether the invention claimed in a patent is new and nonobvious. One would think that, as a central, crucial component of patent law, prior art would be thoroughly theorized and doctrinally coherent. Nothing could be further from the truth. The prior art provisions represent an ad hoc codification of various policies and doctrines that arose in the courts. This Article provides coherency to this morass. It posits a prior art system that draws upon property law’s conception of possession. Possession operates when an actor asserts dominion over a resource or object in a way that communicates that assertion to third parties. In this way, public availability becomes the key lodestar to prior art. In the prior art context, the possession framework would divide prior art into two categories: prior art generated by third parties and prior art generated by the patent applicant herself. The former would require clear demonstration of publicly available information, suggesting that current law is wrong. As for the latter, a possession approach could treat inventor-generated material in the same way as third-party prior art. Alternatively we could take a strict statute of limitations approach to inventor-created uses and commercialization efforts, barring a patent if the inventor simply delays too long in filing her application, regardless of the public accessibility. Sadly, the status quo is an inconsistent blend of both. Finally, some forms of “secret prior art” should be addressed through administrative procedures. The Article then assesses the advantages and disadvantages of such a prior art system, concluding that the benefits outweigh any disadvantages. It then also explores how patent law has done heavy lifting in the context of possession and public accessibility that property law has not. Patent law has more rigorously explored the appropriate audience for receiving the communications of possession. Property law stands to learn from patent law in this regard

Is There a New Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property?

This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the state of the law of extraterritoriality in copyright, trademark, and patent, as it stood before the Supreme Court’s recent intervention. This review demonstrates that all three disciplines were treating extraterritoriality very differently, and none were paying much attention to the presumption against extraterritoriality. Part II reviews a tetralogy of recent Supreme Court cases, describing the Court’s attempt to formalize its approach to extraterritoriality across all fields of law. Part III analyzes the state of IP law in the aftermath of this tetralogy of extraterritoriality cases. It concludes that there has been some impact on patent law, but virtually none on copyright or trademark. The Article assesses whether there is a new extraterritoriality for intellectual property and concludes that there is not: The Supreme Court’s efforts, at least in IP, have not led to greater coherence. While there may be reasons for the lower courts’ failure to follow the framework, it does represent a missed opportunity for cross-fertilization, at least among intellectual property regimes, if not across all fields of law. It also offers a call for the consideration of comity—looking to foreign law and potential conflicts—in deciding whether to apply U.S. law extraterritorially