Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel's Address To The Federal Circuit Judicial Conference On The State Of The Court, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 647 (2008), Paul R. Michel
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
On May 15, 2008, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul R. Michel delivered the annual State of the Court speech. Chief Judge Michel delivered this speech during the Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, held at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Washington. The text of that speech and the corresponding graphics appear here.
The Supreme Court's Trademark Jurisprudence: Categorical Divergence In The Interest Of Information Convergence, 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 635 (2008), Sheldon Halpern
UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law
The author shows that convergence has placed trademark law in the center of some of the hard-fought battles over information ownership in intellectual property. From fights over moral rights, to collisions with patents, trademarks in the new technological age have raised questions that he suggests might be better analyzed if the associative nature of trademarks were recognized and applied.
Live Alienation: One Super-Promoter Eliminates Competition, Concert Fans Pay The Price, And The Sherman Act Waits In The Wings, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 527 (2008), Laura C. Howard
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Must The Jury Reach A Verdict? The Constitutionality Of Eliminating Juries In Patent Trials By Creating An Article I Tribunal, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 754 (2008), Daniel P. Sullivan
Must The Jury Reach A Verdict? The Constitutionality Of Eliminating Juries In Patent Trials By Creating An Article I Tribunal, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 754 (2008), Daniel P. Sullivan
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The February 2007 jury verdict against Microsoft totaling $1.52 billion marked the largest in a patent case ever, following the prevailing trend of juries awarding extraordinarily high damages. Because patent law deals with complex technology and complicated issues of fact and law, and because empirical evidence concludes that juries have significant biases in favor of patentees and against alleged infringers, this comment calls into question whether or not twelve lay persons are sufficiently equipped to handle patent trials. In lieu of juries rendering verdicts in patent trials – and even in lieu of U.S. District Court judges adjudicating patent trials …