Law Commons^™

An Evolving Landscape: Name, Image, And Likeness Rights In High, Adam Epstein -- Professor, Dept. Of Finance And Law, Nathaniel Grow -- Associate Professor Of Business Law & Ethics, Kathryn Kisska-Schulze -- Assoc. Professor Of Business Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

Amateur sports have entered a changing landscape. The onset of Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) opportunities at the college level has prompted over half of state high school athletic associations to likewise permit high school student-athletes to pursue similar financial opportunities. The purpose of this Essay is not to argue for or against the emergence of NIL opportunities at the high school level but instead to explore this newly evolving landscape, identify accompanying financial dangers, and propose a statutory framework that builds upon California’s Coogan’s Law—a measure providing financial safeguards to children working in the entertainment industry—to better protect minor …

Access To Justice For Black Inventors, Jordana R. Goodman Assistant Professor Of Law, Khamal Patterson

Vanderbilt Law Review

To receive a patent, an inventor must meet certain inventive and procedural standards. Their invention must be novel, nonobvious, and written in such a way that any person skilled in the inventive subject can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. This process is far from objective.

An inventor is not always communicating within their own social circle. An inventor is required to communicate their invention so that a patent examiner believes a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA") would recognize the invention as nonobvious. Moreover, a fictitious skilled person must be able to make and use …

Why Can’T We Be Frands?: Anti-Suit Injunctions, International Comity, And International Commercial Arbitration In Standard-Essential Patent Litigation, Raghavendra R. Murthy

Vanderbilt Law Review

Picking up a smartphone to contact someone across the globe isfacilitated by technical standards like 5G. These standards allow for technological compatibility worldwide. For instance, a 5G capable device can connect to 5G networks anywhere in the world because the same 5G standard is used globally. Standards, particularly those integral to the telecommunications industry, are also highly complex and contain many patents that are necessarily infringed when the standard is implemented. To avoid rampant patent infringement, owners of these standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) are required to license them to standard implementers at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) rates when their patents …

Authoring Prior Art, Joseph P. Fishman, Kristelia Garcia

Vanderbilt Law Review

Patent law and copyright law are widely understood to diverge in how they approach prior art, the universe of information that already existed before a particular innovation's development. For patents, prior art is paramount. An invention can't be patented unless it is both novel and nonobvious when viewed against the backdrop of all the earlier inventions that paved the way. But for copyrights, prior art is supposed to be virtually irrelevant. Black-letter copyright doctrine doesn't care if a creative work happens to resemble its predecessors, only that it isn't actually copied from them. In principle, then, outside of the narrow …

A Machete For The Patent Thicket: Using Noerr-Pennington Doctrine’S Sham Exception To Challenge Abusive Patent Tactics By Pharmaceutical Companies, Lisa Orucevic

Vanderbilt Law Review

Outrageous drug prices have dominated news coverage of the American healthcare system for years. Yet despite widespread condemnation of skyrocketing drug prices, nothing seems to change. Pharmaceutical companies can raise drug prices with impunity because they hold patents on their drugs, which give them monopolies. These monopolies are only supposed to last twenty years, and then competing lower-cost drugs like generics can enter the market, driving down the costs of pharmaceuticals for all. But pharmaceutical companies have created “patent thickets,” dense webs of overlapping patents surrounding one drug, which have artificially extended the companies’ monopolies for years or even decades …

Unauthorized And Unwise: The Lawful Use Requirement In Trademark Law, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law Review

For decades, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has required trademark owners to comply with sundry nontrademark laws governing the sale of their trademarked goods and services. Pursuant to this “lawful use requirement,” the Agency has refused or even cancelled registration of thousands of marks used on everything from Schedule I controlled substances to mislabeled soap. This Article subjects the Agency’s lawful use requirement to long-overdue scrutiny. It suggests that in requiring compliance with other laws for registration, the PTO has lost sight of the one statute it is supposed to administer. In the process, the Agency has …

The Library Of Babel For Prior Art: Using Artificial Intelligence To Mass Produce Prior Art In Patent Law, Lucas R. Yordy

Vanderbilt Law Review

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role in the invention and innovation processes of our society. To date, though, much of the academic discussion on the interaction of artificial intelligence and the patent system focuses on the patentability of inventions produced by artificial intelligence. Little attention has been paid to organizations that are seeking to use artificial intelligence to defeat the patentability of otherwise patent-worthy inventions by mass producing prior art. This Note seeks to highlight the consequences of allowing mass-produced, AI-generated prior art to render valuable inventions unpatentable. Specifically, this Note concludes that AI-generated prior art decreases the …

The Research Patent, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law Review

The patent system gives courts the discretion to tailor patentability standards flexibly across technologies to provide optimal incentives for innovation. For chemical inventions, the courts deem them unpatentable if the chemical lacks a practical, non-research-based use at the time patent protection is sought. The fear is that an early-stage patent on a research input would confer too much control over yet-unknown uses for the chemical, thereby potentially hindering downstream innovation. Yet, denying patents on research inputs can frustrate patent law’s broad goal of protecting and promoting scientific and technological advances.

This Article addresses this problem by proposing a new form …

"The New Weapon Of Choice": Law's Current Inability To Properly Address Deepfake Pornography, Anne Pechenik Gieseke

Vanderbilt Law Review

Deepfake technology uses artificial intelligence to realistically manipulate videos by splicing one person’s face onto another’s. While this technology has innocuous usages, some perpetrators have instead used it to create deepfake pornography. These creators use images ripped from social media sites to construct—or request the generation of—a pornographic video showcasing any woman who has shared images of herself online. And while this technology sounds complex enough to be relegated to Hollywood production studios, it is rapidly becoming free and easy-to-use. The implications of deepfake pornography seep into all facets of victims’ lives. Not only does deepfake pornography shatter these victims’ …

Rejection Hurts: Trademark Licenses And The Bankruptcy Code, Amanda E. James

Vanderbilt Law Review

Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code empowers debtors to reject burdensome executory contracts. From 1988 until May 2019, the effect of such a rejection on trademark licenses was unclear. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC settled the matter definitively: all rejections under § 365(g) operate exactly as a breach would outside the bankruptcy context. As such, if the trademark license would allow the licensee to continue using the mark after a breach, the licensee may continue to use the mark after a rejection. While this decision comports with the language of the Code …

Patenting New Uses For Old Inventions, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law Review

A bedrock principle of patent law is that old inventions cannot be patented. And a new use for an old invention does not render the old invention patentable. This is because patent law requires novelty—an invention must be new. But while a new use for an old invention does not make the old invention patentable, the new use itself might be patentable. In fact, new-use patents comprise a significant part of the patent landscape—particularly in pharmaceuticals, when drug companies obtain new-use patents to repurpose old drugs. This trend has fueled debates over follow-on innovation and patent quality. But there is …

Privative Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Vanderbilt Law Review

“Privative” copyright claims are infringement actions brought by authors for the unauthorized public dissemination of works that are private, unpublished, and revelatory of the author’s personal identity. Driven by considerations of authorial autonomy, dignity, and personality rather than monetary value, these claims are almost as old as Anglo-American copyright law itself. Yet modern thinking has attempted to undermine their place within copyright law and sought to move them into the domain of privacy law. This Article challenges the dominant view and argues that privative copyright claims form a legitimate part of the copyright landscape. It shows how privative copyright claims …

Reconceptualizing The Role Of Intellectual Property Rights In Shaping Industry Structure, Peter Lee

Vanderbilt Law Review

Technological and creative industries are critical to economic and social welfare, and the forces that shape such industries are important subjects of legal and policy examination. These industries depend on patents and copyrights, and scholars have long debated whether exclusive rights promote industry consolidation (by shoring up barriers to entry) or fragmentation (by promoting entry of new firms). Much hangs in the balance, for the structure of these IP- intensive industries can determine the amount, variety, and quality of drugs, food, software, movies, music, and books available to society. This Article reconceptualizes the role of patents and copyrights in shaping …

Irrational Ignorance At The Patent Office, Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The principal task of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("Patent Office" or "Agency") is to determine whether an invention merits a reward of a patent.' There is growing consensus that the Patent Office is failing at this task. Many believe that the Agency allows too many "bad" patents that unnecessarily drain consumer welfare, stunt productive research, and unreasonably extract rents from innovators. The Patent Office's overgranting tendencies have been the subject of multiple reports by the National Academies and the Federal Trade Commission. Patent quality concerns have energized the Supreme Court into taking a renewed interest in substantive patent …

Repealing Patents, Christopher Beauchamp

Vanderbilt Law Review

The first known patent case in the United States courts did not enforce a patent. Instead, it sought to repeal one. The practice of cancelling granted patent rights has appeared in various forms over the past two-and-a-quarter centuries, from the earliest U.S. patent law in 1790 to the new regime of inter partes review and post-grant review. With the Supreme Court's recent scrutiny of the constitutionality of inter partes review, this history has taken on a new significance.

This Article uses new archival sources to uncover the history of patent cancellation during the first half-century of American patent law. These …

Online Appendix To Irrational Ignorance At The Patent Office, Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman

Vanderbilt Law Review

In this Section of the Appendix, we discuss a bounded analysis of the personnel costs to the Patent Office (“the Agency”) that result from doubling patent examiner time allocations. In particular, we adopt different multipliers to account for the full cost of a patent examiner to the Patent Office in excess of their base salary. As discussed in Section II.A, we assume a 2.04 factor of an employee’s base salary to account for fringe benefits, employer taxes and insurance, and allotments for office space, rent, equipment, replacement/turnover cost, managerial support, etc. Below, we repeat the calculation in Table 2 of …

Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley

Vanderbilt Law Review

Can an appellate court alter substantive law without writing an opinion? We attempt to answer that question by conducting a novel empirical investigation into how the Federal Circuit has implemented the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, the most recent in a series of Supreme Court decisions strengthening patent law's patentable subject matter requirement. Our dataset includes each one of the Federal Circuit's more than 100 decisions on patentable subject matter in the three years since Alice, including affirmances issued without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. Including those no-opinion affirmances, the Federal Circuit has found …

Combating The Enemy Within: Regulating Employee Misappropriation Of Business Information, Danielle J. Reid

Vanderbilt Law Review

Technological advancements vastly improve efficiency and productivity in the workplace. However, technology also brings with it the ability to transmit mass amounts of business information with ease. As technology continues to evolve and become increasingly prevalent in the modern workplace, the insider presents a considerable threat to employers. In fact, employers increasingly face disgruntled employees who are all too eager to download their employers' sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information before terminating the employment relationship. However, the digital age, a global economy, and a highly mobile workforce have rendered the law utterly unreliable in addressing employee misappropriation. In enacting the Defend …

A Distinction Without A Difference: Convergence In Claim Construction Standards, Laura E. Dolbow

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 2007, a district court found a patent for a medical device valid. While the district court litigation was pending, however, the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") found the exact same patent invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then affirmed both decisions. At first glance, the idea that a patent could be found valid in one forum but invalid in another seems absurd. Yet the law condones these results: district courts and the PTO apply different claim construction standards. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("AIA") created new post-grant proceedings at the PTO to challenge patent …

Causal Responsibility And Patent Infringement, Dmitry Karshtedt

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is not uncommon for multiple parties in the stream of commercemanufacturers, distributors, end users-to be involved in the infringement of a single patent. Yet courts continue to struggle with such scenarios. Attempts to deal with them-particularly when plaintiffs asserted so-called method patents, which cover specific "steps," or actions-have produced results that defy commonsense notions of legal responsibility. In method patent cases, the patentee must clear much higher legal hurdles to prevail against a manufacturer who designed and supplied an infringing device than against an end user who simply bought that device and operated it as intended. The manufacturer can …

Patent Disclosures And Time, Timothy R. Holbrook

Vanderbilt Law Review

Patents by their very nature are pregnant with considerations of time. The exclusive rights they afford only last for a finite period- generally from issuance until twenty years from the filing date of the application. Moreover, since patents necessarily engage with the evolution of technology, patents reflect various "snap shots" in time that reflect the state of the art at a particular moment. Patent law must constantly wrestle with time. Many of these topics have been explored extensively in both judicial decisions and the literature. The most obvious example of considering the temporal aspect of patent law is ... obviousness. …

Nontechnical Disclosure, J. Jonas Anderson

Vanderbilt Law Review

One of the primary goals of the patent system is the broad dissemination of technical knowledge. Patent law forces inventors to disclose how their inventions work. Inventors seeking a patent are required to describe "the manner and process of making and using" the patented invention. Additionally, a patent must "enable any person skilled in the art.., to make and use" the invention. Despite this explicit statutory disclosure requirement, patent law could do better at ensuring that patents convey useful information to the public. Academics have vigorously debated about whether and to what degree the patent system performs its disclosure function. …

Pierson, Peer Review, And Patent Law, Lisa L. Ouellette

Vanderbilt Law Review

When has a researcher done enough to merit a patent? Should the patent belong to the researcher who first suggests an invention or the one who brings it to fruition? The canonical dispute over a fox in Pierson v. Post is used to illustrate the competing policy considerations in deciding when to award a new property right, including providing efficient incentives, setting forth clear rules to guide future behavior, and respecting natural rights. In patent law, all of these considerations suggest that in practice, many patents are awarded too early, before an applicant has demonstrated that the invention is likely …

Legal Fictions And The Role Of Information In Patent Law, Craig A. Nard

Vanderbilt Law Review

In his 1974 Nobel Prize Lecture, Freidrich Hayek admonished us, as he did throughout so much of his work, about the limitations of our knowledge and stressed what knowledge we do have should be used "not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment." This analogy-what Hayek referred to as the "pretense of knowledge"-is germane to legal systems where the common law plays a prominent role. Patent law is such a field. Judicial stewardship of the patent space can be seen as an institutional advantage, one that …

Photocopies, Patents, And Knowledge Transfer: "The Uneasy Case" Of Justice Breyer's Patentable Subject Matter Jurisprudence, Dmitry Karshtedt

Vanderbilt Law Review

One aspect of Justice Stephen Breyer's discomfort with patents, as expressed in his opinion for the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus and his dissent from the order dismissing certiorari in LabCorp v. Metabolite, is strikingly similar to one of his critiques of copyright law in The Uneasy Case for Copyright, a well-known article he wrote as Professor Breyer more than forty-five years ago. In The Uneasy Case, Breyer argued that the burdens on duplication of technical articles imposed by copyright law restrict the flow of information and prevent scientists from enjoying spillover benefits of published research. His patent opinions …

Dynamic Patent Disclosure, Jeanne C. Fromer

Vanderbilt Law Review

Those who tout the role of disclosure as a benefit of the patent system emphasize-as the Supreme Court has-that the information in patents "add[s] to the general store of knowledge [and is] of such importance to the public weal that the Federal Government is willing to pay the high price of ... exclusive use for its disclosure, which disclosure ... will stimulate ideas and the eventual development of further significant advances in the art." As I excavate in this Article, the current state of patent disclosure-which many think is poor and does not achieve its objective of stimulating innovation-is impoverished …

Symposium: The Disclosure Function Of The Patent System, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law Review

A fundamental goal of the patent system is to encourage the dissemination of technical knowledge.' The patent system achieves this goal through a quid pro quo-in exchange for the right to exclude, the inventor must fully disclose the technical details of the invention. As soon as a patent document publishes, there is hope that the public will use the technical details disclosed therein to improve upon the invention, to design around it, or to engage in other innovative activities. So while the patentee maintains the right to exclude others from practicing the invention until the patent expires, the technical information …

Disclosing Designs, Jason Du Mont, Mark D. Janis

Vanderbilt Law Review

The disclosure function figures prominently in many accounts of the utility patent system. But what of its role in the design patent system? Should it be dismissed as trivial? And if so, what are the practical consequences for design patent doctrine in view of the fact that the doctrines that implement the disclosure function in utility patent law also apply to design patents by statutory mandate? The disclosure theory posits that patent documents disclose technical information that serves as a quid pro quo for the patent grant. Even aside from controversies about whether the disclosure function is robust for utility …

The Structural Implications Of Inventors' Disclosure Obligations, Kevin E. Collins

Vanderbilt Law Review

Disclosure theory posits that inventors must disclose knowledge about their inventions and make that knowledge freely available for certain uses during the term of a patent as part of the price that they pay for their exclusive patent rights. This Article identifies an overlooked implication of this disclosure obligation. The availability of disclosed knowledge itself for free public use during the term of a patent means that there must be limits on inventors' rights: inventors must not be allowed to transform the use of disclosed knowledge itself into infringement through strategic claiming. If they could, inventors would, oddly, be able …

Physicalism And Patent Theory, Christopher A. Cotropia

Vanderbilt Law Review

United States patent law's view on the need for a physical embodiment of the invention, and the continued production and use of an embodiment, has varied over the last two centuries. In the early days, the requirement for 'physicalism" was high, with the inventor being required to actually reduce the invention to practice prior to patenting, and enforceability was tied to "working" the claimed invention. By the early 1900s, these requirements of physicalism disappeared. This changing view on physicalism speaks volumes as to which major patent theory the law emphasizes, with physicalism supporting the incentive to invent theory and the …