Faculty in the News
In the News
Bringing predictability to the patent world
Publication date: March 4, 2010
Source: Chicago Lawyer
Author: Melissa Birks
***
An article in the Chicago Lawyer about patent reform quoted Andrew Torrance, associate professor of law.
The Chicago Lawyer wrote:
To the outside observer, the topic of patent reform may be "a real conversation killer," joked Andrew W. Torrance, an associate professor of law at the University of Kansas School of Law who studies patent law.
But to Genet, Torrance and others, this is a great time to be in the business.
...
Opponents would have a year after a patent was issued to ask the patent office to review it, under the proposed post-grant examination procedure.
...
Available in most other countries, this mechanism would represent a "radical change" in U.S. patent law, said Torrance, of the University of Kansas.
"Arguably, this would lead to better, higher-quality patents," Torrance said.
...
Another significant proposed change involves redrawing the route that a complaint takes once in the court system. At the core of that issue is the awkward back-and-forth that exists between district courts and the Federal Circuit.
Today, the first tug in that back-and-forth occurs at the district court level, where both sides argue the patent's claim construction.
"Both parties make a case that words in the claim mean very particular things," said Torrance, the University of Kansas professor. " 'I claim a red balloon.' That might be a claim, but in patent law, it's not clear what a 'red balloon' means. You could claim that a balloon means an automobile. So claim interpretation is a very technical, difficult process, and it's crucial for deciding who wins. The party that gets their interpretation by the judge is the party that typically wins."