Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:11:14.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science Inside Law: The Making of a New Patent Class in the International Patent Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2012

Hyo Yoon Kang
Hyo Yoon Kang*
Affiliation:
University of Lucerne E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Recent studies of patents have argued that the very materiality and techniques of legal media, such as the written patent document, are vital for the legal construction of a patentable invention. Developing the centrality placed on patent documents further, it becomes important to understand how these documents are ordered and mobilized. Patent classification answers the necessity of making the virtual nature of textual claims practicable by linking written inscription to bureaucracy. Here, the epistemological organization of documents overlaps with the grid of patent administration. How are scientific inventions represented in such a process? If we examine the process of creating a new patent category within the International Patent Classification (IPC), it becomes clear that disagreements about the substance of the novel inventive subject matter have been resolved by computer simulations of patent documents in draft classifications. The practical needs of patent examiners were the most important concerns in the making of a new category. Such a lack of epistemological mediation between the scientific and legal identities of an invention depicts a legal understanding that science is already inside patent law. From an internal legal perspective, the self-referential introduction of the new patent category may make practical sense; however it becomes problematic from a technological and scientific standpoint as the remit of the patent classification also affects other social contexts and practices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 551 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Adams, Stephen R. 2006. Information Sources in Patents. Munich: K. G. Saur.Google Scholar
Albrecht, Miguel, et al. 2010. “Quality Assurance in the EPO Patent Information Resource.” World Patent Information 32 (4):279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston. [1934] 1988. Der neue wissenschaftliche Geist, translated into German by Michael Bischoff. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Baker, Wendy, et al. 2000. “The EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database.” Nucleic Acids Research 28 (1):19–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David, and Henry, John. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Biagioli, Mario. 2006. “Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors.” Social Research 73 (4):1129–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, David. 1982. “Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 13 (4):267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonino, Dario, et al. 2010. “Review of the state-of-the-art in patent information and forthcoming evolutions in intelligent patent informatics.” World Patent Information 32 (1):30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostanci, Adam, and Calvert, Jane. 2008. “Invisible Genomes: The Genomics Revolution and Patenting Practice.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39:109–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowker, Geoffrey. 1992. “What's in a Patent?” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by Bijker, Wiebe E. and Law, John, 53–74. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bracha, Oren. 2005. “Owning Ideas: A History of Anglo-American Intellectual Property.” S.J.D. diss. Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
Brennan, David. J. 2005. “The Evolution of English Patent Claims as Property Definers.” Intellectual Property Quarterly 4:361–99.Google Scholar
Burk, Dan L., and Lemley, Mark A.. 2005. “Quantum Patent Mechanics.” Lewis & Clark Law Review 9:29. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=628224.Google Scholar
Cambrosio, Alberto, Keating, Peter, and McKenzie, Michael. 1990. “Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biotechnology Patent Dispute.” Social Problems 37 (3):275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarnik, Anthony. 1999. “Editorial.” Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry 1 (1):1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cullen, Susan E. 2009. “A practical approach to the reformed IPC.” World Patent Information 31 (3):193–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 2000. “The Coming into Being of Scientific Objects.” In Biographies of Scientific Objects, edited by Daston, Lorraine, 1–14. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. [1987] 2007. Psyche: inventions de l'autre. Paris: Editions Galilée.Google Scholar
Desrosières, Alain. 1990. “How to Make Things which Hold Together: Social Science, Statistics and the State.” In Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines, edited by Wagner, Peter, Wittrock, Björn, and Whitley, Richard, 195–218. London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dirnberger, Dietmar. 2011. “A guide to efficient keyword, sequence and classification search strategies for biopharmaceutical drug-centric patent landscape searches.” World Patent Information 33 (2):128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Mary. [1966] 1991. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary, and Hull, David, eds. 1992. How Classification Works: Nelson Goodman among the Social Sciences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dubaric, Ervin, Giannoccaro, Dimitris, Bengtsson, Rune, and Ackermann, Thomas. 2011. “Patent data as indicators of wind power technology development.” World Patent Information 33 (2):144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Emile, and Mauss, Marcel. [1903] 1963. Primitive Classification. Translated from the French and edited with an introduction by Rodney Needham. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edmond, Gary. 2001. “The Law-Set: The Legal-Scientific Production of Medical Propriety.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 26:192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Rebecca. 2002. “Molecules vs. Information: Should Patents Protect Both?” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 8:190.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Rebecca. 2006. “Biotech patents: looking backwards while moving forward.” Nature Biotechnology 24 (3):317–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, Rebecca, and Rai, Arti K.. 2003. “Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine.” Law and Contemporary Problems 66:289–313.Google Scholar
European Bioinformatics Institute. 1998. EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database Release Note 58, March.Google Scholar
European Bioinformatics Institute. 2012. EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database Release Note 111, March. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/Documentation/Release_notes/current/relnotes.html (last accessed April 1, 2012).Google Scholar
European Patent Office. 2011. Moving towards a Global Patent System. http://www.epo.org/papers/classification-ip5/index.html#/0 (last accessed January 30, 2012).Google Scholar
European Patent Office. 2012. “Patent Statics for Decision Making.” Patent Information News 1:6. http://www.epo.org/service-support/publications/patent-information/news/2012.html (last accessed February 29, 2012).Google Scholar
Foglia, Pasquale. 2008. “Use of Classification at the EPO,” Presentation at the WIPO IPC Workshop, 5 February.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. [1966] 1990. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Geysen, Mario H.et al., 1996. “Isotope or Mass Encoding of Combinatorial Libraries.” Chemistry and Biology 3:679–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geysen, Mario H.et al., 2003. “Combinatorial Compound Libraries for Drug Discovery: An Ongoing Challenge.” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2 (3):222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, W. Wayt. 2001. “Patently Inefficient.” Scientific American 284 (2):23–4.Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non- Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6):781–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1968. Languages of Art. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen. 1998. “Data Access in Genome Research.” In Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of Molecular Sciences, edited by Thackray, Arnold, 202–18. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila, ed. 2003. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jordan, Kathleen, and Lynch, Michael. 1998. “The Dissemination, Standardization and Routinization of a Molecular Biological Technique.” Social Studies of Science 28 (5–6):773–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Hyo Yoon. 2006. “Invention and Agency in Patent Law.” Paper presented at the Conference “Con/Texts of Inventions,” April 20–23, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland OH.Google Scholar
Kenney, Martin. 1986. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kenney, Martin. 1998. “Biotechnology and the Creation of a New Economic Space.” In Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of Molecular Sciences, edited by Thackray, Arnold, 131–143. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1994. “Ananda Chakrabarty Wins a Patent.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 25:111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnan, William. 1920. “Progress of the Patent Reclassification Work.” Journal of the Patent Office Society 2 (7):332–337.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora's Hope. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2002. La Fabrique du droit. Une ethnographie du Conseil d'Etat. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Tim and Giannella, Eric. 2006. “The Emergence and Diffusion of DNA Microarray Technology.” Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaborations 1 (1):11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, et al. 2010. “Non-redundant patent sequence databases with value-added annotations at two levels.” Nucleic Acids Research 38:D52–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, Michael. 1994. “Representation is Overrated: Some Critical Remarks about the Use of the Concept of Representation in Science Studies.” Configurations 2:137–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, Christine. 1988. Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, Bruce. 1963. “Solid Phase Peptide Synthesis. The synthesis of a tetrapeptide.” Journal of American Chemical Society 85:2149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2011. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Wille, Staffan, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2009. Das Gen im Zeitalter der Postgenomik. Eine wissenschaftliche Bestandsaufnahme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Myers, Gregg. 1995. “From Discovery to Invention: The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents.” Social Studies of Science 25 (1):57–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaou, K.C., Hanko, Rudolf, and Hartwig, Wolfgang. 2002. “Combinatorial Chemistry in Perspective.” In Handbook of Combinatorial Chemistry, edited by Nicolaou, K.C., Hanko, Rudolf, and Hartwig, Wolfgang, 1–8. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Rachel. 1995. “Entering the Postgenome Era.” Science 270 (5235):368–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowotarski, Mark, Zank, Arlene, and Bowman, Michael. 2011. “Increasing patent allowance rates by selectively targeting a more technological patent class.” IP Watchdog 6 April 2011. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/04/06/increasing-allowance-rates-by-selectively-targeting-patent-class/id=16283/ (last accessed March 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Parry, Bronwyn. 2004. Trading the Genome: Investigating the Commodification of Bio-Information. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PatVal-EU Project. 2005. The Value of European Patents. Evidence from a Survey of European Inventors. Final report. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/patval_mainreportandannexes.pdf (last accessed February 23, 2012).Google Scholar
Pila, Justine. 2003. “Bound Futures: Patent Law and Modern Biotechnology.” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 9 (2):326–378.Google Scholar
Pottage, Alain. 1998. “The Inscription of Life in Law: Genes, Patents and Biopolitics.” Modern Law Review 61 (5):740–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pottage, Alain. 2006. “Materialities in Life and Law: Informatic Technologies and Industrial Property.” Paragrana 15 (1):82–101.Google Scholar
Pottage, Alain, and Sherman, Brad. 2007. “Organisms and manufactures: on the history of plant inventions.” Melbourne University Law Review 31 (2):539–568.Google Scholar
Pottage, Alain, and Sherman, Brad. 2010. Figures of Inventions. A History of Modern Patent Law. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Gene. 2012. “Business methods by the numbers: A look inside PTO class 705.” IP Watchdog 22 January 2012. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/22/business-methods-by-the-numbers-a-look-inside-pto-class-705/id=21892/ (last accessed March 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, Arti K. 1999. “Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science.” Northwestern University Law Review 94 (1):77–152.Google ScholarPubMed
Rampelmann, Juergen. 1996. “Classification Tools at the EPO.” World Patent Information 18 (3):149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rampelmann, Juergen. 1999. “Classification and the future of the IPC – the EPO view.” World Patent Information 21 (3):183–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, William. 2006. “Bureaucracy at a Glance: Visual Evidence and US Patents, 1790–2005.” Paper presented at the Conference “Con/Texts of Inventions,” April 20–23, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland OH.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things. Synthesizing Proteins in a Test Tube. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Riardan, Teresa. 2002. “Patent Model's Strange Odyssey.” New York Times 18 February. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/business/18PATE.html (last accessed March 2, 2010).Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise. 2001. The Network Inside Out. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise. 2006. Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossman, Joseph. 1933. “Editor's Page: Proper Classification of Patents Is Vital.” Journal of the Patent Office Society 15 (1):3–4.Google Scholar
Rossman, Joseph. 1934. “Editor's Page: Emergency Funds of the Patent Office Classification Work.”Journal of Patent Office Society 16 (1):3–4.Google Scholar
Rouse, Richard and Hardiman, Gary. 2003. “Microarray technology – an intellectual property retrospective.” Pharmacogenomics 4 (5):623–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmoch, Ulrich. 2008. “Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons. Final Report to the WIPO,” IPC/CE/41/5 Annex.Google Scholar
Sherman, Brad. 1994. “Governing Science: Patents and Public Sector Research.” Science in Context 7 (3):515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Brad. 2008. “Taxonomic Property.” Cambridge Law Journal 67 (3):560–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Brad, and Bently, Lionel. 1999. The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh, and Bowker, Geoffrey. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 1996. “Cutting the Network.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2 (3):517–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunder Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Swanson, Kara. 2007. “Biotech in Court: A Legal Lesson on the Unity of Science.” Social Studies of Science 37 (3):357–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, Kara. 2009. “The Emergence of the Professional Patent Practitioner.” Technology and Culture 50:519–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, Frederick W. 1922. “Paper Files and Binders, Indexing and Related Arts.” Journal of the Patent Office Society 4 (10):467.Google Scholar
Swedish Patent and Registration Office. 2011. “Active Development of the Patent Classification Systems.” http://www.prv.se/en/About-us/News/Active-development-of-the-patent-classification-systems/ (last accessed December 17, 2011).Google Scholar
Symyx. 1999. SEC Form 424B4 Prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 421, 18 November 1999. http://investor.symyx.com/sec.cfm (last accessed February 19, 2009).Google Scholar
te Heesen, Anke. 2000. patent. eine ausstellung mit 12 objekten. Catalogue leaflet for an exhibition of patent models organized at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin.Google Scholar
Terrett, Nicholas. 1998. Combinatorial Chemistry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thackray, Arnold, ed. 1998. Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of Molecular Sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Van Dulken, Stephen, ed. 1998. Introduction to Patents Information. British Library.Google Scholar
Van Thielen, J. 1998. “Online classification and indexation of documents at the EPO.” World Patent Information 20 (1):17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vismann, Cornelia. [2001] 2008. Files: Law and Media Technology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
WIPO. 1997. Introduction to Intellectual Property Theory and Practice. London, The Hague, Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. [1958] 1991. Philosophical Investigations. Malden MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolter, Bernd. 2012. “It takes all kinds to make a world – some thoughts on the use of classification in patent searching. World Patent Information 34 (1):8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1986. “Recombinant DNA Technology and Its Social Transformation, 1972–1982.” Osiris 2 (2):303–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyman, William. 1922. “The Filing Equipment of the Patent Office.” Journal of the Patent Office Society 5 (4):60–69.Google Scholar

Legal Material

EPO, European Patent Convention. [1973] revised 2000.Google Scholar
EPO. [1973] amended 2001. Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, EP002EN.Google Scholar
EPO. 1998. Organisation of Search and Documentation in DG1. Munich: The Hague.Google Scholar
EPO. 2010. Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guiex/e/index.htm (last accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
EPO and USPTO Cooperative Patent Classification Implementation Group. 2011. Cooperative Patent Classificaiton (CPC). EPO and USPTO Bilateral Classification System. http://www.cooperativepatentclassification.org/publications/CPCPresentation.pdf (last accessed January 19, 2012)Google Scholar
WIPO, Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure. [1977] amended 1980. 32 U.S.T. 1241, 1861 U.N.T.S. 361.Google Scholar
WIPO, Strasbourg Agreement Concerning International Patent Classification. 1971. WO026EN.Google Scholar
WIPO. 1995. Introductory Manual to the IPC, HE050103.Google Scholar
WIPO. 1999–2012. IPC Union Committee of Experts Reports and Annexes (IPC/CE/28 – IPC/CE/44). http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/topic.jsp?group_id=115 (last accessed April 15, 2012).Google Scholar
WIPO. 2000–2004. Revision Project IPC/C422 Annex 1 – 92, available at IPC e-forum. http://www.wipo.int/ipc-ief/en/project/13/C422 (last accessed April 10, 2012).Google Scholar
WIPO. 2006. Guide to the IPC (Int.Cl. [8th edition] vol. 5, Guide), WIPO Publication No. 560E5/8.Google Scholar
WIPO. 2007. “Publication of the Ninth Edition of the IPC (IPC-2009) and Related Material.” IPC Revision Working Group Eighteenth Session, 1 October (IPC/WG/18/2).Google Scholar
WIPO. 2008a. Guide to the IPC (IntCl. [9th edition]). http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/guide/guide_ipc_2009.pdf (last accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
WIPO. 2008b. PCT – The International Patent System. Yearly Review. Developments and Performance in 2008. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/pct/pdf/yearly_review_09.pdf (last accessed April 4, 2010).Google Scholar
WIPO. Simplified Revision Policy and Revision Procedure for the Reformed IPC. http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/simplification/simplification_revision_publication.html (last accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
WIPO. 2012. Comments on Improving the IPC E-Forum Project CE445.Google Scholar
http://www.wipo.int/ipc-ief/en/project/1539/CE445 (last accessed April 10, 2012).Google Scholar
USPTO. 2005. Handbook of Classification.Google Scholar
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/opc/documents/handbook.pdf (last accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
USPTO. [2001] 2010. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 8th ed. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.htm (last accessed April 15, 2012).Google Scholar
USPTO. 2009. Overview of the U.S. Patent Classification System. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/opc/documents/overview.pdf (last accessed April 22, 2012).Google Scholar
United States Patent Act. 1836. Ch. 357, 5 Stat. 117. http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/Patent_Act_of_1836.pdf (last accessed April 12, 2012).Google Scholar
United States Patent Act. 1952. 35 USCS Sect. 1–376. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf (last accessed August 12, 2012).Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Diamond v. Chakrabarty 447 U.S. 303 (1980)Google Scholar
Howard Florey/Relaxin T74/91 [1995] EPOR 541Google Scholar
Harvard/Onco-mouse [2003] OJEPO 473Google Scholar
In re Argoudelis 168 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 99 (C.C.P.A. 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirin Amgen [2002] RPC 187Google Scholar
Seed v Higgins (1858) 8 El & Bl 755; 120 ER 281 (Queens Bench); Higgins v Seed (1858) 8 El & Bl 771, 120 ER 287 (Exchequer); Seed v Higgins (1860) 8 HLC 550; 11 ER 544 (House of Lords).Google Scholar
State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed.Cir. 1998).Google Scholar