Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Appellate review (1)
- Author (1)
- Authorship (1)
- Aymes (1)
- Bonelli (1)
-
- CAFC (1)
- CCNV (1)
- Constitutional fact doctrine (1)
- Continuum (1)
- Copyright (1)
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1)
- Employee (1)
- Factors (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Gig (1)
- Independent contractor (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Multifactor (1)
- Obviousness (1)
- Ownership (1)
- Patent validity (1)
- Patents (1)
- Reid (1)
- Right to control (1)
- Work for hire (1)
- Work made for hire (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Work Made For Hire – Analyzing The Multifactor Balancing Test, Ryan G. Vacca
Work Made For Hire – Analyzing The Multifactor Balancing Test, Ryan G. Vacca
Law Faculty Scholarship
Authorship, and hence, initial ownership of copyrighted works is oftentimes controlled by the 1976 Copyright Act’s work made for hire doctrine. This doctrine states that works created by employees within the scope of their employment result in the employer owning the copyright. One key determination in this analysis is whether the hired party is an employee or independent contractor. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court, in CCNV v. Reid, answered the question of how employees are distinguished from independent contractors by setting forth a list of factors courts should consider. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not give further guidance on …
Law And Fact In Patent Litigation: Form Versus Function, Thomas G. Field Jr
Law And Fact In Patent Litigation: Form Versus Function, Thomas G. Field Jr
Law Faculty Scholarship
Recently, the Supreme Court sent Dennison Mfg. v. Panduit Corp. back to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It remanded with explicit directions that the lower court consider the extent to which Rule 52(a) governs appellate review of determinations of obviousness.
It is by no means certain that obviousness determinations should be treated as questions of law. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that courts seek to review findings of obviousness (or nonobviousness) more intensely than would be appropriate under the "clearly erroneous" or "substantial evidence" standards. If the courts are inclined to persist in more intense review …