Law Commons^™

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

“Improve Your Privileges While They Stay”: A Guide To Improve The Privileges Of U.S. Citizenship For Everybody, Joshua J. Schroeder

Touro Law Review

In 1767, the young Phillis Wheatley wrote from her position of slavery in the Wheatley home of Boston to “ye sons of Science” at Harvard College, telling them to “improve your privileges while they stay.” She beheld the startling privileges of learning and discovery bestowed upon an elite group of young, rich white men in Boston and celebrated their privileges. Neither did she scorn those whose luck had placed a bounty of privilege upon their laps, for she likely planned to share in that bounty herself, one day. When she was only 13 or 14, Wheatley sublimely encouraged grown men …

From Andy Warhol To Barbie: Copyright’S Fair Use Doctrine After Andy Warhol Foundation V. Goldsmith, Niki Kuckes

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Case Law On American Indians: October 2022 - August 2023, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Named Inventor Of A Patent Should Be Expanded To Include Artificial Intelligence, Min Li

Touro Law Review

Why should patent inventors be limited to only natural persons under the current United States patent law? In fact, the present US patent law should be expanded to allow an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to be a named inventor of a patent. This would incentivize patent owners to use AI to produce more inventions that would benefit the public. There is no negative impact to expand the current US patent law. Many scholars, law professors, and practitioners believe that the patent law (or intellectual property law in general) is outdated due to the massive growth of modern technology. This Note argues …

Patent Inconsistency, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Indiana Law Journal

Despite the promise of efficiency through the use of expert agency adjudication in U.S. patent law, administrative substitution continues to fall short. In a variety of ways, the decade-old system of Patent Office adjudication is simply an additional place to litigate rather than the robust technocratic alternative it was meant to be. These problems have arisen from important defects in the statutory design, but also from the enormous expansion and ascendancy of the Patent Office itself. Moreover, while duplicative litigation over patent validity is recognized and criticized, its scale and scope has eluded detailed empirical analysis until now. This Article …

Comic Books, The First Amendment, And The “Best Test” For Right Of Publicity Issues, Rachel Silverstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fiddling With Federal Circuit Precedent: The Commercial And Qualitative Impact Of Recent Supreme Court Reversals On The U.S. Patent System, Christopher J. Hamersky

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Prior to 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit enjoyed a fairly laissez-faire relation with the Supreme Court of the United States, enabling it to develop a patent law jurisprudence that patent practitioners could confidently rely on given that it had remained relatively stable for several decades. However, in 2006, the Supreme Court reviewed eBay v. MercExchange and subsequently began a string of frequent Federal Circuit reversals that have caused significant change to the U.S. patent system. Whereas the Supreme Court rarely took up patent appeals in the Federal Circuit’s early history, it now routinely reviews patent questions …

The “Foul” Protection For A Photographer’S Original And Creative Choices In A Photograph: Exploring The Implications Of Rentmeester V. Nike, Inc. On Creativity In Photography, Olivia Lattanza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case Law On American Indians August 2018-2019, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Unlikely Duo That Shocked The Intellectual Property World And Why The Supreme Court Was The Chosen One To Restore Balance, Nicholas Dilts

University of Miami Law Review

The United States Congress passed the Leahy Smith America Invents Act in 2011 in an effort to streamline the patent system and reduce patent litigation, allowing the United States to continue to be competitive globally. The Act enabled the U.S. Patent Office to facilitate patent challenges through an administrative process called inter partes review, an adversarial proceeding before the newly established Patent Trial and Appeal Board that was designed to be a cheaper and more efficient alternative for post-grant patent review than litigation in front of the federal district courts. In the years that followed, the Patent Trail and Appeal …

A Patent Reformist Supreme Court And Its Unearthed Precedent, Samuel F. Ernst

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

How is it that the Supreme Court, a generalist court, is leading a project of innovation reform in our times while the court of appeals established to encourage innovation is having its precedent stricken down time and again? This decade the Supreme Court has issued far more patent law decisions than in any decade since the passage of the Patent Act of 1952. In doing so, the Supreme Court has overruled the Federal Circuit in roughly threequarters of the patent cases in which the Supreme Court has issued opinions. In most of these cases, the Supreme Court has established rules …

The Post-Alice Jurisprudence Pendulum And Its Effects On Patent Eligible Subject Matter, John Robert Sepúlveda

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proximate Vs. Geographic Limits On Patent Damages, Stephen Yelderman

IP Theory

The exclusive rights of a U.S. patent are limited in two important ways. First, a patent has a technical scope—only the products and methods set out in the patent’s claims may constitute infringement. Second, a patent has a geographic scope—making, using, or selling the products or methods described in the patent’s claims will only constitute infringement if that activity takes place in the United States. These boundaries are foundational features of the patent system: there can be no liability for U.S. patent infringement without an act that falls within both the technical and geographic scope of the patent.

Once liability …

#Squadgoals: A Response To Seth Waxman, Amelia Smith Rinehart

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Court Divided, Shubha Ghosh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Drd Response To Seth P. Waxman's Article, Donald R. Dunner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Charting Supreme Court Patent Law, Near And Far, Joseph Scott Miller

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

May You Live In Interesting Times: Patent Law In The Supreme Court, Seth P. Waxman

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Proper Application Of Nominative Fair Use In Trademark Law: Why International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium, Inc. V. Security University, Llc Sets The Preeminent Standard, Jonathan O. Ballard Jr.

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why And How The Issue Of Copyright Registration Made Its Way Up To The Supreme Court, Justin Scharff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Experimental Use, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

Akron Law Review

In the years since the Supreme Court began to narrow the scope of patentable subject matter, uncertainties in the law have had a deleterious impact on several important innovation sectors, including, in particular, the life sciences industry. There are now initiatives to expand patentable subject matter legislatively. In this article, I suggest that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is an outgrowth of the concern that patents on fundamental discoveries impede scientific research. To deal with that issue, any measure to expand the subject matter of patenting should be coupled with a parallel expansion of defenses to infringement liability, including the restoration …

How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a remarkable number of patent cases in the past decade, particularly as compared to the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence. No longer is the Federal Circuit “the de facto Supreme Court of patents,” as Mark Janis wrote in 2001. Rather, it seems the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of patents. In the article at the center of this symposium, Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit writes that the Supreme Court’s decisions “have had a major impact on patent law,” citing, among other evidence, the Court’s seventy percent reversal rate …

How Can The Supreme Court Not “Understand” Patent Law?, Gregory Reilly

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The Supreme Court does understand patent law. This invited Essay responds to Federal Circuit Judge Dyk’s remarks at the Chicago-Kent Supreme Court IP Review, in particular, his observation that the patent “bar and the academy have expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court understands patent law well enough to make the governing rules” (a view Judge Dyk did not endorse). The idea that the Supreme Court does not understand the law of patents is implausible. Even more generous interpretations of this criticism – that the Supreme Court insufficiently understands innovation policy, insufficiently understands the patent system that Congress desired in creating …

Response To Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Donald R. Dunner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Is The Supreme Court Concerned With Patent Law, The Federal Circuit, Or Both: A Response To Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Timothy R. Holbrook

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This essay is a response to Hon. Timothy B. Dyk, Thoughts on the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, 16 CHI.-KENT J. OF INTELL. PROP. 67 (2016). In it, I address the reasons for the Supreme Court's engagement with patent law. In other words, is the Court interested in patent law itself, or is there something about the Federal Circuit as an institution that has garnered the Court's gaze. I conclude it is a combination of the two. The Court is concerned with certain aspects of patent doctrine, but it is also concerned with the Federal Circuit, …

Thoughts On The Relationship Between The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit, Timothy B. Dyk

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Abuse Of Supreme Court Precedent: The "Historic Kinship", David W. Barnes

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, the Supreme Court applied a doctrine formulated for patent law to an issue arising in copyright law. The Court supplied a rationale for doing so by identifying a “historic kinship” between patent and copyright law based on fundamental goals of intellectual property law. The Court considered how the rationale applied in the particular factual context involved. The Court cautioned that the propriety of extending a doctrine developed in one intellectual property regime to another depends on the particular legal issue involved. Despite the importance of ensuring that new rules are …