Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- IP (2)
- Intellectual Property (2)
- 15 U.S.C. (1)
- 35 U.S.C. §§ 200–12 (2012) (1)
- 456 U.S. 844 (1982) (1)
-
- Artistic (1)
- Bayh-Dole Act (1)
- Civil procedure -- United States -- Cases (1)
- College teachers -- Legal status (1)
- Commercialization (1)
- Contributory infringement (Copyright & trademark) -- Lawsuits & claims (1)
- Copyright law (1)
- Creative ability -- Psychological aspects (1)
- Creativity experiments (1)
- Creators (1)
- Drug laws & regulations -- United States (1)
- Employee patent rights (1)
- Etc. (1)
- Etc.) (1)
- Experiments on Sequential Creativity (1)
- Generic drugs (1)
- Inc (1)
- Inc. v. Ives Laboratories (1)
- Influence (Literary (1)
- Innovation Heuristics (1)
- Innovators (1)
- Intellectual property -- United States (1)
- Intellectual property -- Universities & colleges (1)
- Inventions (1)
- Inventions -- Universities & colleges (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Innovation Heuristics: Experiments On Sequential Creativity In Intellectual Property, Stefan Bechtold, Christopher Buccafusco, Christopher Jon Sprigman
Innovation Heuristics: Experiments On Sequential Creativity In Intellectual Property, Stefan Bechtold, Christopher Buccafusco, Christopher Jon Sprigman
Indiana Law Journal
All creativity and innovation build on existing ideas. Authors and inventors copy, adapt, improve, interpret, and refine the ideas that have come before them. The central task of intellectual property (IP) law is regulating this sequential innovation to ensure that initial creators and subsequent creators receive the appropriate sets of incentives. Although many scholars have applied the tools of economic analysis to consider whether IP law is successful in encouraging cumulative innovation, that work has rested on a set of untested assumptions about creators’ behavior. This Article reports four novel creativity experiments that begin to test those assumptions. In particular, …
University Ip: The University As Coordinator Of The Team Production Process, Samuel Estreicher, Kristina A. Yost
University Ip: The University As Coordinator Of The Team Production Process, Samuel Estreicher, Kristina A. Yost
Indiana Law Journal
This Article focuses on intellectual property (IP) issues in the university setting. Often, universities require faculty who have been hired in whole or in part to invent to assign inventions created within the scope of their employment to the university. In addition, the most effective way to secure compliance with the Bayh-Dole Act, which deals with ownership of inventions involving federally funded research, is for the university to take title to such inventions. Failure to specify who has title can result in title passing to the government. Once the university asserts ownership, it then decides whether to process a patent …
Wiggle Room: Problems And Virtues Of The Inwood Standard, Rian C. Dawson
Wiggle Room: Problems And Virtues Of The Inwood Standard, Rian C. Dawson
Indiana Law Journal
This Note investigates the origins of Inwood that led to the slim opinion with wide influence. It argues that the very vagueness for which scholars and practitioners have decried Inwood is the case's greatest virtue: Inwood provides a flexible standard that has allowed the common law to evolve and address new business models. Part I discusses the origins of contributory infringement in intellectual property. Part II investigates the Inwood case and the climate of trademark law at the time Inwood was litigated. It also dissects the majority opinion and Justice White's concurrance. Part III examines the Inwood standard's evolution at …