Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 10 of 10

Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law

Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski Dec 2013

Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

An individual is liable for patent infringement if he infringes one or more patented claims either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or § 271(c). In 2012, the Federal Circuit clarified its interpretation of § 271(b) and § 271(c) in the case of Akamai v. Limelight. However, the court failed to address issues of “divided” direct infringement, where two or more entities combine and together complete each and every step of a method claim, but no single entity does all of the steps. This Note walks through the history of the judicial interpretation …


Getting Down To (Tattoo) Business: Copyright Norms And Speech Protections For Tattooing, Alexa L. Nickow Dec 2013

Getting Down To (Tattoo) Business: Copyright Norms And Speech Protections For Tattooing, Alexa L. Nickow

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

What level of First Amendment protection should we afford tattooing? General public consensus formerly condemned tattoos as barbaric, but the increasingly diverse clientele of tattoo shops suggests that tattoos have become more mainstream. However, the law has struggled to adjust. The recent proliferation of municipal near-bans on tattooing has brought tattooing to the forefront of First Amendment debates, with cases such as Anderson and Coleman leading the way toward recognizing tattooing as pure speech. Tensions between formal and informal copyright norms in the tattoo industry further highlight the collaborative and expressive nature of the artist-customer relationship and its resulting products, …


The Accidental Agency?, Sapna Kumar Oct 2013

The Accidental Agency?, Sapna Kumar

Florida Law Review

This Article presents a new model for examining the role of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) with regard to patent law, positing that the Federal Circuit behaves like an agency and serves as the de facto administrator of the Patent Act. The Federal Circuit has traditionally engaged in a form of substantive rulemaking by issuing mandatory bright-line rules that bind the public. In reviewing patent agency appeals, the Federal Circuit acts more like an agency than a court by minimizing agency deference through the manipulation of standards of review and administrative law doctrines. This position …


Judicial Fitness For Review Of Complex Biotechnology Issues In Patent Litigation: Technical Claim Interpretation, Megan E. Lyman Apr 2013

Judicial Fitness For Review Of Complex Biotechnology Issues In Patent Litigation: Technical Claim Interpretation, Megan E. Lyman

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.


Rohauer Revisited: "Rear Window," Copyright Reversions, Renewals, Terminations, Derivative Works And Fair Use , Richard Colby Jan 2013

Rohauer Revisited: "Rear Window," Copyright Reversions, Renewals, Terminations, Derivative Works And Fair Use , Richard Colby

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis Jan 2013

States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit's Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, Adam J. Fitzsimmons Jan 2013

Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit's Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, Adam J. Fitzsimmons

Georgia Law Review

Litigants commonly struggle to balance the need to comply with discovery requests and the desire to protect valuable trade secrets. Protective orders to help strike that balance. Questions arise, however, when one of the parties violates that protective order and discloses the opponent's confidential information. Chiefly, what remedies are available for a party whose invaluable intellectual property has been disclosed? At least one circuit has held the most common sanction, payment of attorney's fees, is unavailable for a violation of a protective order. Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) governs sanctions for violations of discovery orders, but the text …


Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor Jan 2013

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.


The Impact Of Local Patent Rules On Rate And Timing Of Case Resolution Relative To Claim Construction: An Empirical Study Of The Past Decade, Pauline M. Pelletier Jan 2013

The Impact Of Local Patent Rules On Rate And Timing Of Case Resolution Relative To Claim Construction: An Empirical Study Of The Past Decade, Pauline M. Pelletier

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.


Should There Be A Presumption Favoring Awards Of Attorney’S Fees In Copyright Litigation?, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 630 (2013), William T. Mcgrath Jan 2013

Should There Be A Presumption Favoring Awards Of Attorney’S Fees In Copyright Litigation?, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 630 (2013), William T. Mcgrath

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Section 505 of the Copyright Act allows courts to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a copyright case. Almost twenty years ago, the Supreme Court in Fogerty resolved a split among the circuits over the interpretation of that statute. First, it held that courts should apply several nonexclusive factors when determining if the prevailing party, whether defendant or plaintiff, should be entitled to recover attorney’s fees. Second, the Court refused to apply a presumption that the prevailing party will automatically recover attorney’s fees, opting instead for the districts courts to apply “equitable discretion” in awarding fees. But in …