Law Commons^™

Giving The Federal Circuit A Run For Its Money: Challenging Patents In The Ptab, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

Notre Dame Law Review

My main objective is directed at institutional questions, to help the PTO and Congress as each considers changes to the system and to gauge how well the PTAB could function to ameliorate the effect of Federal Circuit isolation and provide a basis for the court to consider new perspectives, write more persuasively, and provide better guidance. A second goal is to draw greater academic attention to the potential these procedures have for changing the patent system and to provoke discussion—outside the emerging PTAB bar—on how they ought to operate. In particular, the statute layers inter partes review in a specialized …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellees, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

The District Court correctly determined that Phoenix failed to state a trademark claim because Basket Case’s activities cannot have caused any relevant confusion.1 Phoenix’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—karaoke tracks. Under Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), however, only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the source of the karaoke tracks or their authorization is not actionable. Phoenix cannot avoid Dastar just because Basket Case creates digital copies of those tracks, as Basket Case does not sell digital files or …

The Hydrox Resurrection, Mark Mckenna

NDLS in the News

KESTENBAUM: I wasn't going to let that stop me. So I called up a trademark expert, Mark McKenna at Notre Dame, and I asked him, is this right? Can someone just waltz in and grab a hundred­year­old trademark, suddenly own this whole history? It seemed a little weird 'cause a trademark is like a kind of property. And if you think of this like land...

SMITH: Like, hey, I notice you haven't mowed your lawn for a while, so I'm just going to take a little part of your property.

KESTENBAUM: Yeah, it seems crazy, right? McKenna said, I'm thinking …

Copyright Protection For Tattoos: Are Tattoos Copies?, Michael C. Minahan

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note argues that, although “flash art” and other drawings upon which a tattoo may be based are likely copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Copyright Act), the policy implications of granting copyright protection to tattoos militate against extending such protection. To avoid these consequences, the copyright statute should be interpreted as failing to include the human body as a “copy” within the scope of the Copyright Act and, therefore, tattoos would not be subject to the protection of the Act. Part I provides a background on the statutory framework of the Copyright Act, including the requirements …

Determining Trademark Standing In The Wake Of Lexmark, John L. Brennan

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note examines relevant statutory language, case law, and scholarly criticism, and ultimately contends that the standard articulated in Lexmark should apply to both types of claims. Part I provides background regarding the history of the Lanham Act, looking particularly at the ways in which courts have treated trademarks and false advertising differently. Part II discusses the Lexmark decision and the recent district court cases that have addressed its holding. Part III examines the text of both the Lanham Act and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lexmark in order to determine the decision’s scope, and concludes that Lexmark’s holding …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

Based on the undisputed facts, the NFL’s films in this case are noncommercial speech; their profit-seeking and brand-building nature are standard features of noncommercial speech. Truthful, nondefamatory noncommercial speech deserves full First Amendment protection, and there is no justification for allowing Appellants to control speech about them in this case.

Separately, Appellants’ right of publicity claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, which allows owners of copyrighted works to exploit those works by reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance—precisely the conduct at issue here.

Finally, Appellants’ trademark claims are also precluded by the First Amendment, given that …

Reconciling Intellectual And Personal Property, Aaron Perzanowski, Jason Schultz

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article builds on our earlier work on exhaustion. We have previously emphasized the common law origins of copyright exhaustion, arguing for a judicial interpretation that is more expansive than the narrow statutory first sale rule. Subsequently, we have advocated increased reliance on exhaustion to resolve a range of disputes over personal use by consumers that are typically analyzed through the lenses of fair use and implied license. And, most recently, we have outlined two competing legislative frameworks for a contemporary exhaustion regime as a part of the broader copyright reform effort. This Article examines both the forces undermining copy …

Foresight Bias In Patent Law, Sean B. Seymore

Notre Dame Law Review

Much of patent reform has focused on efforts to make it harder to obtain and enforce low-quality patents. The most straightforward way to achieve this goal is to raise the substantive standards of patentability. What is often ignored in discussions about raising patentability standards is that high-quality inventions can slip through the cracks. What is more troubling is that sometimes this happens because of bias. This Article draws attention to foresight bias, which occurs when a decision-maker lets over-pessimism and an oversimplified view of the future influence the patentability determination. Foresight bias leads to a patent denial regardless of the …