Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 16 of 16

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Constitutional Idea-Expression Doctrine: Qualifying Congress’ Commerce Power When Protecting Intellectual Property Rights., Yavar Bathaee Dec 2007

A Constitutional Idea-Expression Doctrine: Qualifying Congress’ Commerce Power When Protecting Intellectual Property Rights., Yavar Bathaee

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Fixing Through Legislative Fixation: A Call For The Codification And Modernization Of The Staple Article Of Commerce Doctrine As It Applies To Copyright Law, Blake Evan Reese Jul 2007

Fixing Through Legislative Fixation: A Call For The Codification And Modernization Of The Staple Article Of Commerce Doctrine As It Applies To Copyright Law, Blake Evan Reese

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Courts have misinterpreted and disagreed over how to apply relevant principles of patent law to copyright cases in an effort to strike a balance between protecting copyright holders' rights without restricting innovation. The author argues that courts have inflicted damage upon the balance of copyright's competing policies, leaving copyright owners and technology innovators facing great uncertainty. The author's Comment addresses the development of the Staple Defense and the logical reasoning supporting a new legislative proposal.


Ksr V. Teleflex: The Non-Obviousness Requirement Of Patentability, John Richards, Herbert F. Schwartz, Steven L. Lee, John R. Thomas Jun 2007

Ksr V. Teleflex: The Non-Obviousness Requirement Of Patentability, John Richards, Herbert F. Schwartz, Steven L. Lee, John R. Thomas

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.


The Safe Harbor Of 35 U.S.C. § 271(E)(1): The End Of Enforceable Biotechnology Patents In Drug Discovery?, Paul T. Nyffeler May 2007

The Safe Harbor Of 35 U.S.C. § 271(E)(1): The End Of Enforceable Biotechnology Patents In Drug Discovery?, Paul T. Nyffeler

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Extraterritorial Reach Of U.S. Patent Law: Has The Federal Circuit Gone Too Far?, Robert W. Pierson, Jr. Mar 2007

Extraterritorial Reach Of U.S. Patent Law: Has The Federal Circuit Gone Too Far?, Robert W. Pierson, Jr.

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.


The Trademark Jurisprudence Of Judge Rich, Jeffrey M. Samuels, Linda B. Samuels Jan 2007

The Trademark Jurisprudence Of Judge Rich, Jeffrey M. Samuels, Linda B. Samuels

American University Law Review

For nearly forty-three years, Giles Sutherland Rich served as a member of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (C.C.P.A.) and its successor court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Rich is widely regarded as one of the most influential jurists in the area of patent law—and rightfully so. Less well known is that Judge Rich also authored many significant decisions in the area of trademark law. Judge Rich’s opinions in the area of trademarks span the spectrum of trademark registrability issues and explore important issues of public policy. This Article reviews a number of …


The Proper Scope Of Patentability In International Law, Shawn J. Kolitch Jan 2007

The Proper Scope Of Patentability In International Law, Shawn J. Kolitch

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent law encourages innovation, but the harm caused by some inventions may outweigh the benefits of disclosure. This article examines the environmental and public health consequences of patent laws around the world and argues that the patent incentive should be selectively removed to mitigate the harmful effects of granting patents without regard to the invention-specific impacts of doing so.


What Is Patentable Subject Matter? The Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp V. Metabolite Laboratories, But The Issue Is Not Going Away, Sue Ann Mota Jan 2007

What Is Patentable Subject Matter? The Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp V. Metabolite Laboratories, But The Issue Is Not Going Away, Sue Ann Mota

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent law seeks to strike a balance regarding patentable subject matter between overprotection, which can impede the free exchange of ideas, and under-protection, which can lessen the incentive to invent. This article summarizes the Supreme Court's recent decision to dismiss Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., passing on the opportunity to consider the issue of what constitutes patentable subject matter under the Patent Act, and the author outlines recommendations for when the issue is raise by future litigants.


Breaking The Law To Break Into The Black: Patent Infringement As A Business Strategy , Eric C. Wrzesinski Jan 2007

Breaking The Law To Break Into The Black: Patent Infringement As A Business Strategy , Eric C. Wrzesinski

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Corporations and businesses make important decisions everyday that affect their financial viability and market image. This article analyzes the phenomenon of patent infringement, considering whether firms consciously decide to infringe certain patents as a sound business strategy, or whether such cases arise spontaneously due to incomplete and careless research of prior art by infringing firms. The author considers the extent to which patent infringement may remain an effective business strategy for technology-producing firms, even when not employed willfully, due to the inadequate deterrence function of current U.S. patent laws.


Antitrust Issues In The Settlement Of Patent Disputes, Part Iii, Thomas B. Leary Jan 2007

Antitrust Issues In The Settlement Of Patent Disputes, Part Iii, Thomas B. Leary

Seattle University Law Review

Once again, I will address the issue of litigation settlements between companies that hold patents on pharmaceutical products (sometimes "pioneers") and would-be generic entrants ("generics") who challenge the validity of the patent and/or a claim of infringement. This discussion will focus on the Tamoxifen opinion, with passing reference to other decisions. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree on these issues, but I still believe the Commission's approach in Schering was correct.


Patent Ships Sail An Antitrust Sea, Joseph Scott Miller Jan 2007

Patent Ships Sail An Antitrust Sea, Joseph Scott Miller

Seattle University Law Review

The deeper truths evoked by patent ships sailing an antitrust sea are three. First, free competition is the pervasive, baseline reality, the background norm; patent protection is the temporary, partial exception. Second, we grasp both patent and antitrust policy with a common science: economics. Third, although neither patent nor antitrust law doctrines are good tools for fixing fundamental problems in the other body of law, both bodies of law help us better understand the shortcomings of the other. I explore these ideas in turn, below.


Independent Ink At The Crossroads Of Antitrust And Intellectual Property Law: The Court's Holding Regarding Market Power In Cases Involving Patents And Implications In Cases Involving Copyrights, Leonard J. Feldman, Rima J. Alaily, Chad D. Farrell Jan 2007

Independent Ink At The Crossroads Of Antitrust And Intellectual Property Law: The Court's Holding Regarding Market Power In Cases Involving Patents And Implications In Cases Involving Copyrights, Leonard J. Feldman, Rima J. Alaily, Chad D. Farrell

Seattle University Law Review

By eliminating the market power presumption for patent holders, Independent Ink calls into question the presumption's continued validity for tying arrangements involving copyrights. While the Court's holding directly applies only to patents, we present three reasons why, after Independent Ink, the presumption can no longer be viable in antitrust lawsuits challenging a tying arrangement involving a copyrighted product. First, the Court's rationale for eliminating the presumption including citations to extensive academic writings, agency guidelines, and legislative amendments precludes the presumption's continued application in any other context. Second, copyrights are significantly less likely than patents to confer market power because …


From Infringement To Innovation: Counterfeiting And Enforcement In The Brics, J. Benjamin Bai, Keith D. Lindenbaum, Yi Qian, Cynthia Ho Jan 2007

From Infringement To Innovation: Counterfeiting And Enforcement In The Brics, J. Benjamin Bai, Keith D. Lindenbaum, Yi Qian, Cynthia Ho

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.


The Emerging Bric Economies: Lessons From Intellectual Property Negotiation And Enforcement, Robert C. Bird, Daniel R. Cahoy Jan 2007

The Emerging Bric Economies: Lessons From Intellectual Property Negotiation And Enforcement, Robert C. Bird, Daniel R. Cahoy

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.


The Existing Legal Infrastructure Of Brics: Where Have We Been And Where Are We Going?, Robert B. Ahdieh, Zhu (Julie) Lee, Srividhya Ragavan, Kevin Noonan, Clinton W. Francis Jan 2007

The Existing Legal Infrastructure Of Brics: Where Have We Been And Where Are We Going?, Robert B. Ahdieh, Zhu (Julie) Lee, Srividhya Ragavan, Kevin Noonan, Clinton W. Francis

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.


Ntp V. Rim: The Diverging Law Between System And Method Claim Infringement, Stephen P. Cole Jan 2007

Ntp V. Rim: The Diverging Law Between System And Method Claim Infringement, Stephen P. Cole

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “Almost thirty years after the landmark decision of Decca Ltd. v. United States, the Federal Circuit had an opportunity to reevaluate the extraterritorial limits of U.S. patent law in NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd. After withdrawing its initial opinion (“NTP I”) and issuing a second opinion (“NTP II”), the court held that a system having a component located outside U.S. jurisdiction could be subject to U.S. patent law. The court held as a matter of law, however, that a process in which a step is performed outside U.S. jurisdiction could not be subject to U.S. patent law. …