Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

A Generation Of Patent Litigation, Michael Risch

Michael Risch

This study compares twenty-five years of litigation and patents of the ten most litigious NPEs (as of 2009) with a random group of cases and patents in the same yearly proportions. All cases involving every patent was gathered, allowing the life cycle of each asserted patent to be studied. The data includes litigation data, patent data, reexaminations, and other relevant data. This paper considers outcomes and patent quality. A future paper will examine innovation and markets. Unsurprisingly, the data shows that the studied NPE patents were found invalid and noninfringed about twice as often as the comparable nonNPEs. But there …

Intellectual Property Rights And The Ppsa: Challenges For Interest Holders, Creditors And Practitioners, Francina Cantatore

Francina Cantatore

The Australian Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) has made significant inroads into traditional norms of dealing with intellectual property (IP) ownership and rights since its introduction in January 2012, the transitional period of two years having ended on 31 January 2014.Registration requirements under the PPSA have significantly affected a range of commercial transactions dealing with personal property, including the interests of lessors and lessees, consignors and consignees, sellers and buyers, licensors and licensees, and lenders and borrowers. This article considers how IP is treated under the PPSA, and how owners and disseminators of IP (and the practitioners who advise them) …

Living With Monsanto, Daryl Lim

Daryl Lim

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw …

Cases For Lecture 3; Trademarks, Macerata 17 March 2015, Ulf Maunsbach

Ulf Maunsbach

No abstract provided.

Cases For Lecture 4 - Copyright In Cyberspace, Macerata, 8 April 2015, Ulf Maunsbach

Ulf Maunsbach

No abstract provided.

Introduction: The Defend Trade Secrets Act Of 2015, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Introduction À Quelques Aspects Du Droit Américain, W. Gregory Voss

W. Gregory Voss

This is an introduction (in French) to my contributions on U.S. law for the workshop -- "Les défis du numérique dans l'entreprise en Europe" ("The Challenges of Digital Technologies in Europe") held at the Toulouse Business School on February 27, 2015. One of my contributions, which is unpublished -- "Les conditions générales d’utilisation des sites web soumis au droit américain et quelques protections pour les consommateurs" -- is available on this website. Another -- "Les données personnelles dans l'entreprise vues au travers du prisme du droit américain" -- was published in the October 2015 issue of the Revue Lamy Droit …

Copyright Porn Trolls, Wasting Taxi Medallions, And The Propriety Of ‘Property’, Tom W. Bell

Tom W. Bell

What happens when the government creates privileges that have powers rivaling those that the common law accords to property? Recent events in two seemingly unrelated areas suggest a troubling answer to that question. First, in copyright, porn trolls have sued thousands of John Does for allegedly participating in illegal file sharing. These suits evidently seek not judicial vindication but merely the defendants' identities, which the plaintiffs then use to reap settlement payments from guilty and innocent alike. Second, taxi drivers in cities across the world have launched legal, political, and physical attacks against Uber and other networked transportation services, accusing …

Patentable Subject Matter As A Policy Lever, Amy L. Landers

Amy L. Landers

Patents are intended to be used as instruments to further policy. One potent policy driver to accomplish such goals is through the legal construction and application of the term “invention." Internationally, various legal authorities have recognized that this definition can be crafted in ways that are targeted to have real-world consequences. In the U.S., the open-ended framework of the Patent Act's section 101 invites judicial interpretation to effectuate the law's purposes. Ideally, these determinations should rest on articulated, transparent reasoning so that, under a common law system, those policies can serve as touchstones to ensure that the relevant precedents are …

The Anti-Patent: A Proposal For Startup Immunity, Amy L. Landers

Amy L. Landers

The controversy surrounding the current implementation of the patent system is well known. Some question whether the system has become entirely dysfunctional and disincentives innovation, particularly as the law operates within some industries. Moreover, early stage companies, particularly those just beginning to gain success, are particularly vulnerable targets for lawsuits. Notably, these same companies can be rich sources of important technological innovation.

Because the U.S. has always had a patent system, it is impossible to understand the intended and unintended consequences of eliminating this form of intellectual property protection even in a limited manner. As economist Fritz Machlup stated in …

Road To Failure Is Paved With Good Excuses: Calls (Again) To Repeal S 51(3) Of The Competition And Consumer Act 2010, Tyrone Berger

Dr Tyrone Berger

From the outset of the Commonwealth Government announcing a ‘root and branch’ review into Australia’s competition policy on 4 December 2013 (‘Harper Review’), many observers were left with little doubt that the ‘IP exception’ under s 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) would come under attack again. The concern (now and past) for the Government is acheving a balance between the granting of IP rights, which seek to increase incentives for R&D investment, and curbing any anti-competitive effects arising from increased market power. Encouraging firms to innovate is normally seen as an underlying justification of IP …

Patenting Physibles: A Fresh Perspective For Claiming 3d-Printable Products, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

Ending Unreasonable Royalties: Why Nominal Damages Are Adequate To Compensate Patent Assertion Entities For Infringement, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

Applying Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Restriction, Jonas Anderson

J. Jonas Anderson

Living With Monsanto, 2015 Mich. St. L. Rev. 559 (2015), Daryl Lim

Daryl Lim

Frand V. Compulsory Licensing: The Lesser Of The Two Evils, Srividhya Ragavan

Srividhya Ragavan

No abstract provided.

Patent Conflicts, Tejas N. Narechania

Tejas N. Narechania

Abriendo Caminos: Acceso A La Cultura, Educación A Distancia Y Digitalización De Obras En Los Límites Y Excepciones A Los Derechos De Autor, Javier André Murillo Chávez

Javier André Murillo Chávez

No abstract provided.

Corporate "Human Rights" To Intellectual Property Protection, J. Janewa Osei Tutu

J. Janewa Osei-Tutu

Copyright And Ownership Of Fan Created Works: Fanfiction And Beyond, Raizel Liebler

Raizel Liebler