Comment on Insulin
Devial@discuss.online 6 days agoThat logic applies identically to an existing patent. For the issues you mention, there is no distinction between the patent being filed at the PTO and still valid, or being filled at the PTO and disclaimed. In terms of the enforcibility, and patentability of a ““new”” inventions with prior art, there is no legal distinction whatsoever between the prior art being a disclaimed and valid patent, so I don’t think that’s a valid reason to not disclaim it.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 6 days ago
The difference is that in the case of transferring the patent to the university, there’s a legal department at the ready to defend the patent. The same is not the case for a disclaimed patent.
Devial@discuss.online 6 days ago
Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Of course, but an university owning a patent gives them the responsibility to defend it, and also incentivizes them to do so.
Devial@discuss.online 5 days ago
No it doesn’t. They’re explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.