Category Archives: Law

  1. Home
  2. Archive by category "Law"
Loading
loading...

2026 National Patent Application Drafting Competition

The NPADC is a team competition for law students to develop skills in drafting patent applications, focusing on U.S. patent law. Teams receive a hypothetical invention statement, conduct prior art searches, draft specifications and claims, and present their work to judges, including patent examiners and practitioners. For 2025, the invention was an extra-uterine system for supporting premature fetuses, indicating the complexity of tasks involved

There is no publicly available timetable for the 2026 National Patent Application Drafting Competition (NPADC) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as of the latest available information. The USPTO typically releases detailed schedules for the NPADC closer to the competition year, often in the fall of the preceding year (e.g., October or November 2025 for the 2026 competition).

 

Thomas Jefferson was the leader in founding the United States Patent Office. Jefferson was a strong supporter of the patent system and believed that it was essential for promoting innovation and progress in the United States. As the first Secretary of State Jefferson was responsible for implementing the country’s patent system.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

In 1790, Jefferson drafted the first Patent Act, which established the procedures for applying for and granting patents. The act also created the United States Patent Office as a government agency to oversee the patent system. Jefferson appointed the first Patent Board, which was responsible for reviewing patent applications and making recommendations to the Secretary of State.

Jefferson was deeply involved in the early development of the Patent Office and was instrumental in shaping its policies and procedures. He believed that the patent system should be accessible to all inventors, regardless of their social or economic status, and he worked to streamline the patent application process to make it more efficient and user-friendly.

In recognition of his contributions to the development of the patent system, Jefferson is often referred to as the “Father of American Innovation.”

This clause grants Congress the authority to establish a system of patents and copyrights to protect the intellectual property of inventors and authors. The purpose of this system is to encourage innovation and creativity by providing inventors and authors with a temporary monopoly on their creations, allowing them to profit from their work and invest in future projects. The clause also emphasizes the importance of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, reflecting the belief of the founders that the development of new technologies and inventions was essential for the growth and prosperity of the United States.

Over the years, the Patent Office has played a crucial role in the development of the United States as a technological leader, granting patents for inventions ranging from the telephone and the light bulb to the airplane and the computer. Today, the Patent Office is part of the United States Department of Commerce and is responsible for examining patent applications and issuing patents to inventors and companies.

Welcome to the 2025 National Patent Application Drafting Competition!

2024 National Patent Application Drafting Competition

Uno a uno

Intellectual Property in the Age of Open Source

Innovation management

Readings / FRAND licensing in an Unwired world

Protection of Intellectual Property in the Supply Chain

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/NLYtNwMSRqDwuP9h/

Antitrust Regulators & Standards Development Organizations

“The Bosses of the Senate”, a cartoon by Joseph Keppler depicting corporate interests—from steel, copper, oil, iron, sugar, tin, and coal to paper bags, envelopes, and salt—as giant money bags looming over the tiny senators at their desks in the Chamber of the United States Senate. CLICK ON IMAGE

 

#BigAcademia

 

To carry out our mission to make education facilities safer, simpler, lower-cost and longer-lasting we are sensitive to the mission of all market actors in this (nearly) half-trillion (and largely, non-profit) space.  Standards Michigan is a for-profit, limited liability corporation with an evolving business model that seeks to apply any tool — and invent one — to accomplish its objective.   With its origin and inspiration from a University of Michigan business and finance enterprise in 1993; we are skilled in asserting the user-interest in the global standards system and have a solid and verifiable track record of success making safe and sustainable cost reductions possible.  See our ABOUT.

Staying in business means staying in your lane and being sensitive to competitors who can become collaborators on specific issues.   The collaboration may not last long, or be very limited in scope, but it is a credit to the global standards system that a framework for collaboration and competition is generally fixed and honored in the courts.

The education industry is a discoverer and promulgator of new knowledge.  It has a social obligation to contribute to the culture of collegiality to transfer to every nation’s youth as inherited wisdom.  Simultaneous competition and collaboration opens onto a minefield of sensitivities, however.

We frequently refer to incumbent stakeholders, or “verticals” when we frame public commenting opportunities presented by standards developing organizations (SDOs) of any configuration (accredited, consortia, or open source).   We have a search algorithm that runs continuously and picks up commenting opportunities by SDO’s twice a day.  Several times a year we update our list of education industry trade associations; most of them not standards developers*.  These trade associations have constraints; the need to tip-toe around the laws that regulate their activity.

So do trade associations aligned with the academic side of the education industry, as can be observed in the December 2019 case  U.S. v. National Association for College Admission Counseling.   Perspective on this case appears in an article written by a partner in the first name in US standards law Gesmer Updegrove‘s blog: CONSORTIUMINFO.ORG

Antitrust Regulators Turn Attention to Standards Organizations

Russ Schlossbach | March 25, 2020

Along with the Federal Trade Commission the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. is the public enforcer of antitrust law.

* The education industry trade associations that are ANSI standards developers are the direct result of University of Michigan facility operations catalyzing balance in leading practice discovery.  The primary example is Total Cost of Ownership standard developed by APPA Leadership in Education.

 

LEARN MORE:

Readings / National Cooperative Research & Production Act

 

 

Readings / FRAND licensing in an Unwired world

 

Landmark Legal Cases

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.

IP

 

Developing and managing organizational knowledge

Knowledge management in data center project lifecycles

Thammasat University

Knowledge management in data center project lifecycle

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

 

Abstract. Data center[s] [are] comprised of at least 16 systems. Each system requires each knowledge area, most of explicit knowledge of data center is informed of best practices, standards, regulations, site references, and case studies, while implicit knowledge of data center is undocumented but it is informed of personal experience and certifications. Synergy both explicit and implicit knowledge needs tool such as technology enhanced learning (TEL) for integration all knowledge areas of data center project management (DCPM). This paper explores methods of postmortem interval and bounded rationality and 10 data center projects as case study used in qualitative research. This paper proposes data center project phases (DCPP) as a spiraling process flow of interactions between explicit and implicit knowledge since traditional project management (PM) and knowledge management (KM) models have failed to address the problems of knowledge employees and team during data center project lifecycle.

 

Welcome

Standards Michigan Group, LLC

2723 South State Street | Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA

888-746-3670

DIRECTIONS

icon icon
icon icon
icon icon  
Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
Standards Michigan
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content