Chemistry and the Law

It is with a heavy heart that I write my final Chair’s Message for CHAL. As many of you know, CHAL co-founder and Past Chair Jack Riley passed away at his home in California on April 5, 2008, at the age of 81.

In no way can I fully describe Jack’s wonderful life, impressive achievements and tremendous contributions to CHAL in my brief Chair’s Message, and I encourage everyone to read the poignant article about Jack written by CHAL co-founder and Past Chair Howard Peters, one of Jack’s closest friends. I would like, however, to say a few brief words about Jack and share some memories of Jack’s service to CHAL.
(more…)

Tags: Uncategorized
No Comments »

By Chadwick Sullivan, Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery

On June 9, 2008, the Supreme Court decided Quanta Computers, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., and limited a patent owner’s right to seek payment for using a method once a product using the method is sold. The Court held that the authorized sale of a product incorporating a patented method “exhausts” the patentee’s right to seek payment for use of the patented method from a purchaser of the product. As a result, purchasers of the product are free to use the patented method without a separate payment to the patentee.
(more…)

Tags: Case Law Reports
No Comments »

A conversation between Brian Treco and Nhung McLeland

Brian: Nhung, to many of us, that sounds like a very silly question. After all, the answer is “I do”, isn’t it? Well, we know that surprisingly often, that is NOT the case in the United States for inventors who are employees. My read is that under U.S. laws ownership vests initially in the actual inventor(s) of an invention. However, an employee-inventor may not have retained that ownership. How can it be that an employee may invent it, but not have sole ownership, or even co-ownership of the invention?
(more…)

Tags: Society Happenings
No Comments »