Comments on: Zoltek Corp. v. U.S.: Protecting Patent Holders from Government Infringement http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/04/22/zoltek-corp-v-us-protecting-patent-holders-from-government-infringement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=zoltek-corp-v-us-protecting-patent-holders-from-government-infringement Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dimitri Eliades http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/04/22/zoltek-corp-v-us-protecting-patent-holders-from-government-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-33212 Dimitri Eliades Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:37:21 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/04/22/zoltek-corp-v-us-protecting-patent-holders-from-government-infringement/#comment-33212 In Australia we have a Crown right to subsume an inventio n for the services of the government, subject to an obligation to pay remuneration. Is there a proscribed standard or cases which indicate the approach to be taken by the courts in the US in assessing such compensation payable to the patentee as a result of government use of the patent? In Australia we have a Crown right to subsume an inventio n for the services of the government, subject to an obligation to pay remuneration. Is there a proscribed standard or cases which indicate the approach to be taken by the courts in the US in assessing such compensation payable to the patentee as a result of government use of the patent?

]]> By: tom dickey http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/04/22/zoltek-corp-v-us-protecting-patent-holders-from-government-infringement/comment-page-1/#comment-7082 tom dickey Sat, 05 May 2007 15:59:42 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/04/22/zoltek-corp-v-us-protecting-patent-holders-from-government-infringement/#comment-7082 As C.J. Roberts told the committee during his confirmation hearings (saying Judge Friendly had told it to him), "read the statute. READ the statute. read the STATUTE." The actual fourth through eigth words of 1498(a) are: "described in and covered by." Does the statute say, "described in and CLAIMED by?" It does not. What the heck does "covered by" mean? I have no idea, but smarter people than me have decided that when Congress wrote "covered by," Congress meant, "infringed under section 271." Zoltek itself apparently agrees with established precedent on this interpretation, at least as far as its first "question presented" goes. Question 1 reads: 1. Whether conduct by the government through its authorized contractors that would otherwise constitute patent infringement under § 271(g) or § 271(a) is a taking of property subject to the Fifth Amendment? The funny thing about that question is that two courts have already considered the factual question of whether this defendant's actions constituted patent infringement under § 271(g) or § 271(a) and found, as a matter of fact, that they did not. As C.J. Roberts told the committee during his confirmation hearings (saying Judge Friendly had told it to him), “read the statute. READ the statute. read the STATUTE.”

The actual fourth through eigth words of 1498(a) are: “described in and covered by.” Does the statute say, “described in and CLAIMED by?” It does not. What the heck does “covered by” mean? I have no idea, but smarter people than me have decided that when Congress wrote “covered by,” Congress meant, “infringed under section 271.”

Zoltek itself apparently agrees with established precedent on this interpretation, at least as far as its first “question presented” goes. Question 1 reads:

1. Whether conduct by the government through its authorized contractors that would otherwise constitute patent infringement under § 271(g) or § 271(a) is a taking of property subject to the Fifth Amendment?

The funny thing about that question is that two courts have already considered the factual question of whether this defendant’s actions constituted patent infringement under § 271(g) or § 271(a) and found, as a matter of fact, that they did not.

]]>