Search the archive.

“In,” The Britannica Dictionary,” https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/in.

in /ˈɪn/ /ən/ preposition

“In,” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/in.

in

“In,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in.

in

“In,” Collins Dictionary, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in.

in

Although the claims recite only one positional relationship between the gas equilibration reservoir and the conduit, namely that the former is positioned in the latter, the '824 written description (including both text and drawings) teaches three, separate positional embodiments.56 Turning first to the text of the specification, taught is one embodiment in which the gas equilibrium reservoir is "within" the conduit (col. 9, line 42) or "in" the conduit (col. 3, lines 18, 42).57

[BEGIN FOOTNOTE 57] Webster's defines "in," at 557, as "Within the bounds or area of" and "within," at 1268, as "In or into the inner part: INSIDE." Note that the definition of "within" incorporates "in." The word "in" does not require that something be completely and continuously inside of something else. A component may be "in" another component if it is located, at least in relevant part, in the defined space. See Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., 119 F.3d 16, 1997 WL 419391 at *8 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (non-precedential). See also Gemstar-TV Guide Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("General use dictionaries define 'in' as 'used as a functional word to indicate location or position in space or in some materially bounded object.' Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1139 (1993). From these definitions, the ordinary meaning of 'storage means in a data processor' is a device capable of retaining data located within a data processing device or system."); TI Group Automotive Sys. (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("we affirm the district court's construction of the term 'within' as meaning 'inside'," stating "what is not outside is on the inside"). [END FOOTNOTE 57]

Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.

Delia S. Tantuico and Errol Wilfred Zshornack, “Intellectual Property Rights: Talking Points for RP-US FTA Negotiations,” Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2006, pp. 23-24, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/127931/1/pids-dps2006-12.pdf.

Specifically, the three major issues in intellectual property rights protection between the Philippines and the U.S. are:

Next, we consider the extent to which the country provides "adequate and effective" protection of intellectual property rights. The Senate Finance Committee Report explained that:

To determine whether a country provides "adequate and effective means," the President should consider the extent of statutory protection for intellectual property (including the scope and duration of such protection), the remedies available to aggrieved parties, the willingness and ability of the government to enforce intellectual property rights on behalf of foreign nationals, the ability of foreign nationals to effectively enforce their intellectual property rights on their own behalf, and whether the country's system of law imposes formalities or similar requirements that, in practice, are an obstacle to meaningful protection.

1.15 "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION" shall mean the application, prosecution (including, without limitation, all interference actions, term extensions and disclaimers, reexaminations, reissues, and divisions), maintenance, defense and enforcement of U.S. and foreign patent applications and patents arising therefrom, and establishment and protection of trade secrets and other forms of intellectual property rights.

Section 101 states only that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

The statute does not identify special areas that are not patent-eligible, but the courts have developed case law that abstract ideas and laws of nature can't be patented. Those exceptions to patent-eligibility have gained new force after the high court invoked them to invalidate patents on human genes in Myriad and a computerized method of hedging risk in Alice.

What went wrong? In a nutshell, U.S. patent protections have greatly weakened in the new millennium. The primary culprits are federal judges, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.

For example, in several high-profile cases involving human health, the high court shrank the pool of inventions eligible for patenting.

I’ve written before on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s International Intellectual Property Index, which ranks the strength of countries’ intellectual property protection based on publicly available information about the IP landscape in each country. This includes laws, regulations, court decisions, academic studies, analysis from bodies like OECD, and news stories. As I mentioned in my post on the 2014 index, a fair amount of subjectivity goes into the document, which ranks the U.S. #1 and is used to promote the expansion of U.S.-style intellectual property norms.

Today I came across James Nurton’s post on the Managing IP Blog about the multinational law firm Taylor Wessing’s Global Intellectual Property index (GIPI). This comparison of countries’ IP protection ranks the U.S. at 24 out of 43 – tied with Chile and occupying a neighborhood in the list among other countries the U.S. has accused of inadequate IP protection.

While each study makes important contributions in assessing the strength of IPR protection in countries, several conceptual and measurement issues are raised. The first conceptual issue is which IPR laws must be examined to gauge protection. Rapp and Rozek's measure assumes patent laws are ipso facto IPR laws. However, services increasingly are accounting for larger portions of economic growth. The value of a name or identification therefore has significant economic impact. Particularly in western countries, the economic contributions of copyrighted software production, entertainment products, and publishing are significant. To discount these two forms of IP protection would be to underestimate their economic impact. Similarly, it has been argued elsewhere (Ostergard 1999; Hettinger 1989) that nations do not treat all IP equally. Some forms of IP are more important to nations' economies than others. Using patents as a proxy for all IPR may overlook this issue. While Seyoum measures the strength of these laws individually, Sherwood's measure blends five different forms of IPR laws into the measure. As I noted earlier, the combining of various laws into one conceptual measure of IPR protection may present some theoretical and methodological difficulty.

A second conceptual issue relates to the enforcement of the laws. Rapp and Rozek and Seyoum do not include a component for enforcement in their study, though Rapp and Rozek recognize the issue (1990a, 7). The logic behind this proposition is intuitively simple. Nations may have in place the institutional structures and financial resources to enforce these laws, but others that do not have these structures and resources may not be able to enforce the laws adequately. Sherwood too recognizes this issue by including an enforceability component in his measure, but it does not significantly address the behavior of the governing regime in enforcing the intellectual property laws. The enforcement component Sherwood uses reflects an assessment of the potential to enforce IPR laws and not an assessment of the regime's actual performance.

Lesser39 in constructing a new scoring system to reflect patent protection in the post-TRIPS era noted prior scores typically have in common the following components:

• protectable subject matter

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), including trademarks and patents, encourage creative activity for the benefit of a free society. Innovations are protected through IPR and inventors afford an opportunity to derive fair returns from their investments. The acquisition of Intellectual Property Rights is one of the primary tools for incentivizing creators in a modern economy. Property rights are human rights that spark innovation and nurture economic growth. It has been the most effective mechanism to guarantee civil rights and civil liberties. Protecting individual liberty is the fundamental reason for a system of strong private property rights.

Throughout the unprecedented pandemic crisis, there has been a continuing debate about pat- ents for medicines. The right balance provides early access to affordable medicines with sufficient flexibility to protect intellectual property (IP). Patents are a part of the solution for the COVID-19 vaccine. Dismantling patent protection is not correlated with IP. In fact, scientists developed vac- cines in record time because of the security and resources provided by IP systems.

In accordance with international standards, the term "protection of intellectual property rights" means the activities of authorized state authorities to recognize rights, restore rights and remove obstacles that impede the realization of the rights and interests of subjects of intellectual property rights. In this regard, depending on the context, this term means legal protection of intellectual property rights, restoration of rights (protection of rights) of the right holder, enforcement of rights (Izbash, 2018).

In order to implement the specific work of intellectual property protection, the state and government must put forward the corresponding protection mechanism, which fully reflects the importance attached to intellectual property protection. Therefore, the government and judicial departments should update and improve the relevant laws in light of the actual situation. For example, from the perspective of patent law, works law, etc., the protection of intellectual property rights is clearly defined. Count the related infringements, and formulate corresponding punishment measures for these infringements, and further improve the judicial supervision system, so that the owners and beneficiaries of intellectual property rights can be protected by law [4]. In addition, to improve the relevant professional protection system, we need to mobilize various forces. These forces mainly reflect the state's emphasis on intellectual property protection. As long as the government and the state take corresponding measures, people's awareness of safeguarding rights can be raised. This fundamentally ensures that the owners of intellectual property rights can constantly innovate in the process of practice and actively research and develop technology projects that are beneficial to national development. Thus, the support and protection of the law is the basis for promoting the progress of science and technology, and it is also an authoritative means. As a researcher in the new era, we should not only pay attention to the research and development of technology, but also learn to protect our legitimate rights and interests by legal means. Only in this way can we build a good technology research and development system and play an important role in intellectual property protection. In addition, the state and the government should combine with individuals to fully raise the awareness of individual rights protection, so that people can have no worries in innovation and ensure the smooth progress of all work in China.

As for the infringement notion, it encompasses cases where a person who is not the owner or licensee and assignee of the owner of the IPR copies, reproduces, or exercises any of the exclusive rights granted in respect to the IPR in question without the license or consent of the IPR owner. Furthermore, infringement proceedings comprise both claims where the plaintiff brings an IPR infringement action or where the claimant starts a declaratory action to establish that the IPR is not infringed. The term pure infringement claims will be adopted to denote infringement disputes where the validity of the IPR involved is not raised. Additionally, the term transnational misappropriation of IPRs will be used synonymously with transnational infringement of IPRs. The term protection will be treated as synonymous to judicial enforcement.

This paper provides two tools for patent scholars to help them study patents and their value. The first is a measure of patent scope, the extent of the legal coverage that a patent provides. The second is an econometric instrument, a measure of a patent examiner’s scope toughness on the extent of scope given to a patent, which allows for causal inference on the effect of getting more or less patent scope.

To ensure that our measures are capturing the phenomena that we intend, we ground them in (i) the details of patent law, (ii) the rules of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and (iii) the practice of attorneys prosecuting patents. We also do extensive validation work to show that our measures accord with the views of practitioner experts and with the observed behavior of patent filers. Next, we compare our measure with other approaches for measuring patent scope suggested in the literature. Finally, we provide an example of how our instrument can be used, showing that patents with (exogenously) narrower scope are less likely to be declared standards-essential.

The initial decision to protect IP rights leaves open the major question of how its attributes should be configured. On this topic, we should expect the same variation in the forms of IP as with physical property, given the profound legal differences for legal regimes in land and water.102 No one can take physical possession of IP rights, so it is pointless to ask whether IP rights reach to the heavens or descend to the center of the earth. Nor is it important to think about easements over neighboring property. But at least four other dimensions demand more detailed analysis: duration, exclusion, disposition, and takings. The proper approach to these matters rests on the “carryover thesis,” which seeks to make as few adjustments to the various systems of physical property in order to develop the optimal system of IP.