42,094 research outputs found

    Checking the Staats: How Long Is Too Long to Give Adequate Public Notice in Broadening Reissue Patent Applications?

    Get PDF
    A classic property rights question looms large in the field of patent law: where do the rights of inventors end and the rights of the public begin? The right of inventors to modify the scope of their claimed inventions, even after the patent issues, is in direct tension with the concepts of public notice and the public domain. The Patent Act currently permits broadening of claims so long as a reissue application demonstrating intent to broaden is filed within two years of the original patent issue. Over the years, however, this relatively straightforward statutory provision has sparked numerous disputes over its meaning and application. On September 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments or In re Staats. In this case, Apple Computer, Inc. appeals the rejection of a continuation reissue patent application. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected the application on the grounds that Apple attempted to broaden the scope of its patent claims in a manner not “foreseeable” more than eight years after the patent first issued. Apple contends that the language of the statute and prior case law permit its interpretation, and the application should be allowed in the interest of innovation. This issue is hardly a new one—this submission highlights nearly 140 years of case law, legislative history, and statutory shaping pertaining to broadening reissues. We analyze the issues raised in the briefs from Staats, as well as the oral arguments. Finally, we discuss from a practitioner’s perspective what the Federal Circuit could do—and should do—in the field of broadening reissues

    Lifelong learning and recovery: an account from the perspective of the EMILIA project.

    Get PDF
    The paper is based upon the accounts of mental health service users, who all suffered from severe long-term mental illness. The training intervention: “Empowering people in recovery” was developed during the Emilia project (see below). The training process in recovery at Middlesex University, London, an Emilia demonstration site, was accredited, took place over twelve weeks, four hours every session. At the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, the other Emilia demonstration site, there were twelve hours of taught training programme over three days in one week. The second phase was also twelve hours but at once a week intervals. The Emilia project also developed a “personal development plan” module for the training; both London and Warsaw demonstration sites assisted their mental health service users in using it. Many students taking part in this training found it to be a very positive experience. These results need replication and further work to identify what were the preconditions for making it such a worthwhile experience and how this could be replicated on a wider basis
    • …
    corecore