Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Intellectual Property, Laurence P. Colton, Nigamnarayan Acharya, John C. Bush
Intellectual Property, Laurence P. Colton, Nigamnarayan Acharya, John C. Bush
Mercer Law Review
This Article surveys case law developments relevant to Georgia in the area of intellectual property during the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Intellectual property law comprises several discrete yet overlapping areas of law. The four primary areas of intellectual property law are patent law, trademark law, copyright law, and trade secret law. Because patent law and copyright law are provided for in the United States Constitution, these decisions are based in federal law and are litigated in federal courts. Trademark law and trade secret law have both federal and state aspects, and the cases regarding these …
Illinois Tool Works Inc. V. Independent Ink, Inc.: The Intersection Of Patent Law And Antitrust Law In The Context Of Patent Tying Arrangements, Tiffany L. Williams
Illinois Tool Works Inc. V. Independent Ink, Inc.: The Intersection Of Patent Law And Antitrust Law In The Context Of Patent Tying Arrangements, Tiffany L. Williams
Mercer Law Review
It is increasingly common for businesses to sell products that are protected by a patent. But what happens when the company markets a bundle of products where some products are protected by patents, but others are not? Under well-settled antitrust jurisprudence, such marketing typically would raise antitrust concerns as a tying arrangement only where there are at least two separate products, the company has market power over one of the products, and the company requires that customers buy one or more additional products as part of a bundle.
In Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., the United …
Federal Rule 50: Medium Rare Application? Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. V. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., Leslie Eanes
Federal Rule 50: Medium Rare Application? Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. V. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., Leslie Eanes
Mercer Law Review
The year 2006 marked a historical year for the now seventy-year-old Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. In addition to an overhaul of the statutory language, which, absent contrary congressional action, became codified December 1, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. In what seems to be a straightforward procedural dictate from the High Court, Unitherm has actually resulted in confusion among federal circuits anxious to follow its precedent.