Abstract
College; J.D., 1996, Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis. 1. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1008 (1994 & Supp. III 1997). 2. IND. CODE §§ 24-2-3-1 to -8 (1998). 3. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (1994). 4. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 182 (1981) (holding that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are unpatentable subject matter); Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507 (1874) (“An idea of itself is not patentable, but a new device by which it may be made practically useful is.”). 5. 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) (1994). RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
