Law Commons^™

Intellectual Property Piracy In The Time Of The Metaverse, James M. Cooper

Faculty Scholarship

The article explores ways in which companies, innovators, artists, and cultural workers can best protect their IP rights in the metaverse. Focusing on IP piracy and counterfeiting, long-time problems in both the real world and online, the article addresses the threats that these illicit activities pose to legitimate commerce, government tax revenues, public safety, and national security. It examines the implications that the metaverse poses for businesses going forward with respect to brand management and revenue source protection and details the manners in which IP rights can be best protected in the metaverse. It concludes with a review of the …

Help Was Not On The Way: Intellectual Property Liability Relief In A Pandemic Era, Kim Vu-Dinh

Faculty Scholarship

On January 21, 2020, the United States recorded its first case of COVID-19. By April of that same year, numerous hospitals across the nation had exhausted entire reserves of personal protective equipment (PPE), with looming uncertainty as to when they would be replenished. As infection numbers increased exponentially, global demand for some types of PPE increased by 1000%.

Volunteers across the nation assembled teams of makers—some professionals, but also scores of amateurs—to craft the critical equipment needed to slow down the onslaught of the pandemic. From creating cloth masks to ventilator pistons, nonprofits and everyday citizens were able to partially …

Proving Copying, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter S. Menell

Faculty Scholarship

Proof that a defendant actually copied from a copyrighted work is a critical part of a claim for copyright infringement. Indeed, absent such copying, there is no infringement. The most common method of proving copying involves the use of circumstantial evidence, consisting of proof that a defendant had “access” to the protected work, and a showing of “similarities” between the copy and the protected work. In inferring copying from the combination of such evidence, courts have for many decades developed a framework known as the “inverse ratio rule,” which allows them to modulate the level of proof needed on access …

Federal Investigation Agency Against The Crime Of Book Piracy In Pakistan, Ghalib Khan Dr., Sobia Bashir, Faisal Shahzad, Saeed Ullah Jan Dr

Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal)

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is a counter-intelligence, criminal investigation and security agency of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was established in 1975. The Economic Crime Wing (ECW) of the FIA has the mandate to protect the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of the people of Pakistan. The main objective of this study is to investigate the role of FIA against the crime of book piracy in Pakistan. To achieve this objective, data was collected from the annual administration reports of FIA. The study found that FIA has been playing a vital role against the crime of book piracy …

Is There A New Extraterritoriality In Intellectual Property?, Timothy R. Holbrook

Faculty Articles

This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the state of the law of extraterritoriality in copyright, trademark, and patent, as it stood before the Supreme Court’s recent intervention. This review demonstrates that all three disciplines were treating extraterritoriality very differently, and none were paying much attention to the presumption against extraterritoriality. Part II reviews a tetralogy of recent Supreme Court cases, describing the Court’s attempt to formalize its approach to extraterritoriality across all fields of law. Part III analyzes the state of IP law in the aftermath of this tetralogy of extraterritoriality cases. It concludes that there has been …

We're All Pirates Now: Making Do In A Precarious Ip Ecosystem, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

Fifteen years after the Piracy Paradox explained how most anti-copying protection is unnecessary for a thriving fashion industry, we face another piracy paradox: with broader and stronger IP laws and a digital economy in which IP enforcement is more draconian than ever, what explains the ubiquity of everyday copying, sharing, re-making and re-mixing practices that are the life blood of the internet's expressive and innovative ecosystems? Drawing on empirical data from a decade of research, this short essay provides two examples of this "new piracy paradox": a legal regime that ostensibly punishes piracy in a culture in which it is …

Did The America Invents Act Change University Technology Transfer?, Cynthia L. Dahl

All Faculty Scholarship

University technology transfer offices (TTOs) are the gatekeepers to groundbreaking innovations sparked in research laboratories around the U.S. With a business model reliant on patenting and licensing out for commercialization, TTOs were positioned for upheaval when the America Invents Act (AIA) transformed U.S. patent law in 2011. Now almost ten years later, this article examines the AIA’s actual effects on this patent-centric industry. It focuses on the five key areas of most interest to TTOs: i) first to file priority; ii) broadening of the universe of prior art; iii) carve-out to the prior commercial use defense; iv) micro-entity fees; and …

Charging Bull, Fearless Girl, Composition, And Copyright, Richard H. Chused

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Restructuring Copyright Infringement, Gideon Parchomovsky, Abraham Bell

All Faculty Scholarship

Copyright law employs a one-size-fits-all strict liability regime against all unauthorized users of copyrighted works. The current regime takes no account of the blameworthiness of the unauthorized user or of the information costs she faces. Nor does it consider ways in which the rightsholders may have contributed to potential infringements, or ways in which they could have cheaply avoided them. A non-consensual use of a copyrighted work entitles copyright owners to the full panoply of remedies available under the Copyright Act, including supra-compensatory damage awards, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. This liability regime is unjust, as it largely fails …

Monetizing Infringement, Kristelia García

Publications

The deterrence of copyright infringement and the evils of piracy have long been an axiomatic focus of both legislators and scholars. The conventional view is that infringement must be curbed and/or punished in order for copyright to fulfill its purported goals of incentivizing creation and ensuring access to works. This Essay proves this view false by demonstrating that some rightsholders don’t merely tolerate, but actually encourage infringement, both explicitly and implicitly, in a variety of different situations and for one common reason: they benefit from it. Rightsholders’ ability to monetize infringement destabilizes long-held but problematic assumptions about both rightsholder preferences, …

Unregistered Complaints, Christine Galbraith Davik

Faculty Publications

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its highly-anticipated decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, LLC which resolved a split among U.S. Court of Appeals concerning the point in time when a copyright owner is first able to file suit against an alleged infringer. While at first glance this case may merely appear to be a simple issue of statutory interpretation, namely whether it is upon application for registration or once a determination has been made on registration by the U.S. Copyright Office, I argue this decision is a clarion call for a much-needed amendment to …

Copyright: A Powerful Tool To Protect, Preserve, And Promote Your Research, Paul Royster, Sue A. Gardner

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries: Conference Presentations and Speeches

Copyright begins at “birth”

You can also register.

The holder of copyright controls the ability of others to distribute: reproductions, derivatives, translations, performance

Length of term = until you die + 70 years

Licensing and contracts

Permissions

Publisher contracts

Creative Commons licenses

Gold Open Access/APCs

Predatory journals

"Can I use this {image / quote / video clip / ...} in my {lecture / course materials / dissertation / ...}” ?

Public domain (= no copyright)

Educational use = Not Infringement

Plagiarism vs. infringement

Fair Use (1): Re-using copyrighted materials in your own work--legally

Fair use (2): The 4 Factors

Who …

Improper Appropriation, Daniel J. Gervais

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The traditional (Arnstein) test for copyright infringement is satisfied when the owner of a valid copyright establishes unauthorized copying by the defendant. To demonstrate unauthorized copying, one of the major tests is that the plaintiff must first show that her work was actually copied; second, she must establish substantial similarity and/or that the copying amounts to an improper or unlawful appropriation. The second prong is satisfied when (i) protected expression in the earlier work was copied and (ii) the amount of the copyrighted work that is copied must be more than de minimis. This Article examines, first, how impropriety has …

Top Tens In 2017: Patent, Trademark, Copyright And Trade Secret Cases, Stephen M. Mcjohn

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

The Supreme Court loosened the grip of patentees on their products, holding that contractual restrictions on patented product are ineffective to preserve patent rights. The Court also loosened the grip of the Eastern District of Texas on patent cases, announcing a narrower standard that will send more cases to Delaware. The Federal Circuit cases piled up on applying the Alice standard to filter nonpatentable abstract ideas from patentable inventions. Meanwhile, even as the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board pends before the Supreme Court, hundreds of PTAB decisions on the validity of patents move onward to the Federal …

How Should Damages Be Calculated For Design Patent Infringement?, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitioner, No. 18-600, Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. V. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Timothy R. Holbrook, Ann Bartow, Andrew Chin, David C. Hricik, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Lucas Osborn

All Faculty Scholarship

To comply with the obligations of the Uruguay Round Agreements, particularly the Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), Congress amended 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) to make it an act of infringement to “offer to sell” a patented invention within the United States. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 103-465, §§ 531-533, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994).

The Federal Circuit has interpreted this provision in a manner contrary to the presumption against the extraterritorial reach of United States laws. The Federal Circuit has held that location of the ultimate sale contemplated in the offer controls the …

The Patently Unexceptional Venue Statute, Paul Gugliuzza, Megan M. La Belle

Faculty Scholarship

Legal doctrines developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are often derided as “exceptionalist,” particularly on issues of procedure. The court’s interpretation of the venue statute for patent infringement suits seems, at first glance, to fit that mold. According to the Federal Circuit, the statute places few constraints on the plaintiff’s choice of forum when suing corporate defendants. This permissive venue rule has lead critics to suggest that the court is, once again, outside the mainstream. The Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods would seem to indicate that those critics …

Trending @ Rwu Law: Professor Niki Kuckes's Post: 'Disparaging' Trademarks Meet The First Amendment 02-07-2017, Niki Kuckes

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Design Patent Infringement Needs A Free Expression Defense (La Infracción De Patentes De Diseño Necesita Una Defensa De Libre Expresión), Richard J. Peltz-Steele, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

English Abstract: As elsewhere in the world, design patents are propagating copiously in U.S. intellectual property law. Notwithstanding their fertility, design patents face potentially prohibitive and as yet unexplored legal challenges. One possibility is that the U.S. Congress might lack the very power to authorize design patents. Another possibility – our subject here, with implications for design patents in Europe and around the world – is that design patents violate fundamental rights if there is not a defense to infringement founded in the freedom of expression.

Spanish Abstract: Las patentes de diseño se propagan en abundancia en el derecho de …

Internet Safe Harbors And The Transformation Of Copyright Law, Matthew Sag

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article explores the potential displacement of substantive copyright law in the increasingly important online environment. In 1998, Congress enacted a system of intermediary safe harbors as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The internet safe harbors and the associated system of notice-and-takedown fundamentally changed the incentives of platforms, users, and rightsholders in relation to claims of copyright infringement. These different incentives interact to yield a functional balance of copyright online that diverges markedly from the experience of copyright law in traditional media environments. More recently, private agreements between rightsholders and large commercial internet platforms have been made …

A Transactional Theory Of The Reader In Copyright Law, Zahr K. Said

Articles

Copyright doctrine requires judges and juries to engage in some form of experiencing or “reading” artistic works to determine whether these works have been infringed. Despite the central role that this reading—or viewing, or listening—plays in copyright disputes, copyright law lacks a robust theory of reading, and of the proper role for the “reader.” Reading matters in copyright cases, first, because many courts rely on the “ordinary observer” standard to determine infringement, which requires figuring out or assuming how an ordinary observer would read the works at issue. Second, most courts characterize a key part of infringement analysis as a …

Regulating Patent Assertions, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have seen a proliferation of statutes regulating and lawsuits challenging patent enforcement conduct. The Federal Circuit, however, has held that acts of patent enforcement are illegal only if there is clear and convincing evidence both that the patent holder’s infringement allegations were objectively baseless and that the patent holder knew or should have known its allegations were baseless. This chapter summarizes recent efforts by state governments and the federal government to control patent enforcement behavior, questions the broad immunity the Federal Circuit has conferred on patent holders, and seeks to improve pending federal legislation governing patent enforcement. In …

The Insurability Of Claims For Restitution, Christopher French

Journal Articles

Does and should a wrongdoer’s liability insurance cover an aggrieved party’s claim for restitution (e.g., a claim for the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains)? This article answers those questions. It does so by first answering the question of whether claims for restitution are covered under the terms of liability insurance policies. Then, after concluding that they are, it addresses the question of whether claims for restitution should be insurable as a matter of public policy and insurance law theory. There are long-standing legal and equitable principles that, on the one hand, dictate that a wrongdoer should not be allowed to benefit …

Early Filing And Functional Claiming, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A major problem in the patent system is that many patents claim far more than the patentee actually invented. In his perceptive article, Ready for Patenting, Mark Lemley argues that this overclaiming is caused in part by legal doctrines that encourage inventors to file a patent application as early as possible, often before — or even instead of — building their invention. Patents issued from early-filed applications, Lemley argues, tend to be overly broad because the applicant does not yet know how the invention actually works.

This response essay, part of the Boston University Law Review’s symposium on Notice Failure …

How Oracle Erred: Functionality, Useful Articles, And The Future Of Computer Copyright, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

In Oracle v. Google (2015), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the " method header " components of a dominant computer program were uncopyrightable as " merging " with the headers' ideas or function. Google had copied the headers to ease the ability of third-party programmers to interact with Google's Android platform. The court rebuffed the copyrightability challenge; it reasoned that because the plaintiff's expression might have been written in alternative forms, there was no " merger " of idea and expression. But the Oracle court may have been asking the wrong question. In Lotus v. Borland (1995), the owner of …

Scenes From The Copyright Office, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This essay uses a series of vignettes drawn from Billy Joel’s career to describe his encounters with copyright law. It begins by examining the ownership of the copyright in Joel’s songs. It continues by considering the authorship of Joel’s songs, and it concludes by evaluating certain infringement actions filed against Joel. This Essay observes that Joel’s encounters with copyright law were confusing and frustrating, but also quite typical. The banality of his experiences captures the uncertainty and incoherence of copyright doctrine.

An Intentional Tort Theory Of Patents, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Article challenges the dogma of U.S. patent law that direct infringement is a strict liability tort. Impermissibly practicing a patented invention does create liability even if the infringer did not intend to infringe or know about the patent. The consensus is that this is a form of strict liability. The flaw in the consensus is that it proves too little, for the same is true of intentional torts: intent to commit the tort is unnecessary, and ignorance of the legal right is no excuse. What is relevant is intent to perform the action that the law deems tortious. So …

The Supreme Court's Quiet Revolution In Induced Patent Infringement, Timothy R. Holbrook

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court over the last decade or so has reengaged with patent law. While much attention has been paid to the Court’s reworking of what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and enhancing tools to combat “patent trolls,” what many have missed is the Court’s reworking of the contours of active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Court has taken the same number of § 271(b) cases as subject matter eligibility cases—four. Yet this reworking has not garnered much attention in the literature. This Article offers the first comprehensive assessment of the Court’s efforts to define active …

A Jukebox For Patents: Can Patent Licensing Of Incremental Inventions Be Controlled By Compulsory Licensing?, Ralph D. Clifford

Faculty Publications

The patent system today no longer follows the classic understanding of how it is designed to work. In theory, to avoid infringement, a product developer searches the database of issued patents looking for those that might read onto the product being developed. If such patents are found, the developer can approach the patent holder for a license, can attempt to design around the claims, or can abandon the project. With many hundreds of thousands of patents being issued annually—a rate of issuance almost an order of magnitude larger than a hundred years ago—it is now a practical impossibility to search …

Top Tens In 2015: Patent, Trademark, Copyright And Trade Secret Cases, Stephen M. Mcjohn

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

The Supreme Court significantly affected the dynamics of patent litigation, holding that patent claim interpretation was not always reviewed de novo and that good faith belief that a patent was invalid was not a defense to infringement. The Federal Circuit potentially changed the approach to patent claim interpretation, holding that claims could be interpreted in light of the written description of the invention, even where the claim was not ambiguous. The Federal Circuit also addressed inducement of patent infringement, holding that it was not inducement to suggest consulting a physician who would likely prescribe an infringing treatment. The Federal Circuit …