Author ORCID Identifier
Geographic disparity, Patent law, Public accessibility, Constitution, Intellectual Property Clause, Traditional knowledge
In Defense of Geographic Disparity is Professor Craig Nard's response to my article Patently Unconstitutional: The Geographical Limitation on Prior Art in a Small World (Patently Unconstitutional). According to Professor Nard, my article advocates "the elimination of [the] geographic disparity" of 35 U.S.C § 102 in order to "protect developing nations and indigenous peoples from Western countries' patent law regimes." Professor Nard is correct in his assertion that I seek the elimination of the geographical disparity in U.S. patent law; however, he misses the mark as to my reasons. My opposition to the geographical limitation does not derive from a desire to protect anyone from valid patent rights, rather it is a result of my conclusion that§ 102(b) is unconstitutional.
Minnesota Law Review
Margo A. Bagley, Still Patently Unconstitutional: A Reply to Professor Nard, 88 MINN. L. REV. 239 (2003).