Law Commons^™

Revisiting Belligerent Reprisals In The Age Of Cyber?

Marquette Law Review

None.

Intellectual Property Issues For Startups Participating In Entrepreneurship Support Programs In Wisconsin, Nathaniel S. Hammons

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Wisconsin is not known as a bastion of startup activity. Yet the startup scene has changed significantly since the turn of the century, and the pace of change has been accelerating. In 2001, only eight early-stage Wisconsin companies raised capital, totaling less than $53 million. In 2016, by way of comparison, 137 early-stage Wisconsin companies raised more than $276 million in investment capital. As someone familiar with the state might surmise, more than half of the deals closed in 2016 were in the Madison area, home to the University of Wisconsin-Madison and large employers in information technology, healthcare, and life …

Celebrating Wisconsin Entrepreneurs: Lessons Learned From Wisconsin Entrepreneurs And Businesses, And Future Prospects For A Healthcare Sector That Is Healthcare Reform, Daniel S. Sem, Si Gou, Taleb Aljabban

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Wisconsin has a rich history of entrepreneurial activity, which is often not appreciated beyond its well-recognized strength in the beer and cheese industries. However, Wisconsin’s entrepreneurial nature has been called into question. Recently, Wisconsin was ranked fiftieth in the United States for startup activity by the Kauffman Foundation. In contrast, Wisconsin ranks at the top of the country for startups that are local and established business with more longevity. The first half of this article will review some of the challenges and opportunities that have faced Wisconsin entrepreneurs, and will provide an overview of over 150 Wisconsin companies (Table 1), …

The Mystery Of Section 253(B), Matthew Gagnier

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In 2014, Elon Musk, the renowned and socially-minded CEO of Tesla Motors, Inc., posted a blog on Tesla’s website that stated the company would be freeing up many of its patents involved in the creation of the company’s electric cars to any interested party. Yet again, Musk astounded the public by choosing the betterment of society over corporate profits—stirring up a more positive image than any other corporate personality. But there are numerous questions that Musk’s positive PR have drowned out: Where can you access the patents?; How did freeing up the patents get past the other executive officers and …

Noa V. Doa: Increasing Medical Diagnostic Patentability After Mayo, Karen Mckenzie

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

The medical diagnostics market is expected to reach 65 billion by 2018. In March 2012, in Mayo Collborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc. , ("Mayo") the U.S. Supreme held that the Mayo Clinic (the "Clinic") had not infringed on Prometheus Labs’ (“Prometheus”) diagnostic patent because the Prometheus patent involved ineligible subject matter, and was therefore invalid. Section 101 of the Patent Act defines eligible subject matter an “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” as patentable subject matter. Courts have held that Section 101 contains an implicit exception, making laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract …

Patent Eligibility's Doctrinal Exclusions... Lately, A Scary Movie Too Difficult To Watch: Concrete Solutions And Suggestions, Kristy J. Downing

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent eligible subject matter is defined by the legislature’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” Since the nineteenth century, however, United States (U.S.) courts have considered certain otherwise eligible subject matter excludable from patent protection. The judiciary’s doctrinal exclusions’ purpose was to protect fundamental building blocks to science and useful arts ensuring that such information could not be monopolized by one entity. Presently, however, the judicial exclusions have been used to exclude fewer fundamental building blocks and more ordinary brick-and-mortar innovations after two U.S. supreme court decisions (Mayo …

Determining Enhanced Damages After Halo Electronics: Still A Struggle?, Veronica Corcoran

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act allows district courts to use their discretion to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed in the case of patent infringement. This Comment will consider how the Supreme court of the United States’ holding in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse electronics, Inc. changed the landscape of enhanced damages awards in light of willful infringement.

First, this Comment will examine the Federal Circuit’s approach that now embraces both an objective and subjective inquiry in determining enhanced damages, which may resolve the concern over the rigidity in the Seagate …