Law Commons^™

Computational Experimentation, Tabrez Y. Ebrahim

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Experimentation conjures images of laboratories and equipment in biotechnology, chemistry, materials science, and pharmaceuticals. Yet modern day experimentation is not limited to only chemical synthesis, but is increasingly computational. Researchers in the unpredictable arts can experiment upon the functions, properties, reactions, and structures of chemical compounds with highly accurate computational techniques. These computational capabilities challenge the enablement and utility patentability requirements. The patent statute requires that the inventor explain how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation and that the invention have at least substantial and specific utility. These patentability requirements do not align with computational research capabilities, …

Who Owns A Joke? Copyright Law And Stand-Up Comedy, Scott Woodard

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Copyright laws are touted as the highest legal authorities by which artists can protect their works against all comers. However, when an artist's work fails to fit neatly into the statutory parameters needed to acquire copyright protection, that artist could receive no safeguards to ensure that their works will not be misappropriated by others.

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of two copyright regimes--from the United States and the United Kingdom--and measures their relative similarities and differences. From this comparison, this article explains how stand-up comedians, a group of artists who have traditionally believed their work was incapable of receiving …

Amended Rules, Amended Pleadings: How The Abrogation Of Form 18 Politicized Direct Infringement Patent Pleading, Nick Baniel

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Since the abrogation of Form 18, the template for pleading direct infringement of patents, district courts have struggled to assess exactly what a plaintiff must assert in pleadings to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In place of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84, courts have developed multiple standards to assess pleading sufficiency. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has provided little guidance when given the opportunity to resolve this division, leaving uncertainty for litigants and judges. Using data collected from opinions on motions to dismiss during 2016 and 2017, this Note …

Reviewing St. Regis: Unresolved Issues At The Intersection Of Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Patent Law, Lucas Paez

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

In July 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that sovereign immunity does not circumvent an inter partes review brought by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. By deciding against the tribe in Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals ("St. Regis"), the court determined that inter partes reviews are adjudicatory proceedings brought by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and not an action brought by a private party. This ruling was the second significant ruling regarding inter partes reviews of the year, the first being the Supreme Court holding that inter partes reviews are constitutional. While the specific matter in …

Weeding Out Wolves: Protecting Speakers And Punishing Pirates In Unmasking Analyses, Nathaniel Plemons

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Note examines the prevalence of anonymous internet speakers, the practical and legal issues that courts confront when balancing the rights of anonymous internet speakers with those of plaintiffs seeking to unmask them, and the serious dangers courts expose speakers to if wrongfully unmasked. Part I argues that internet speech merits the same First Amendment protections as traditional speech, notes the unique benefits of anonymous internet speech, examines the practical difficulties faced by courts and plaintiffs in unmasking anonymous speakers, and details the immense dangers these speakers face if wrongfully exposed. Part II analyzes the most common approaches courts use …

The Right Of Attribution In Literary Works In Three Acts, By W. Shakespeare, Daniel J. Gervais

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Article charts the three phases in the evolution of the norm of attribution in literary works: the norm in England before and during Shakespeare's time, the emergence of authorship-based norms in the Romantic period (allowing moral rights to be enshrined in international copyright treaties) and their demise at the hands of postmodernism and New Criticism, and the current norms that aim to protect the integrity of educational processes and to inform readers and other users of books, plays, or other creative works about their "source." It tracks a debate during Shakespeare's lifetime on the difference between nonattribution and false …

Thou Shalt Not Steele: Reexamining The Extraterritorial Reach Of The Lanham Act, James C. Gracey

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

US courts have applied domestic trademark law to actions taken outside of the United States's borders for years, but the US Supreme Court recently revamped the presumption against extraterritoriality, a canon of statutory interpretation. The presumption against extraterritoriality promotes a judicial means of respecting the sovereignty of foreign states by disallowing the application of domestic law to foreign acts. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the Lanham Act, the United States's domestic trademark law, to have extraterritorial reach in Bulova Watch Co. v. Steele. This Note traces the recent evolution and strengthening of the presumption before analyzing how circuit courts have …

Rule 36 Decisions At The Federal Circuit: Statutory Authority, Matthew J. Dowd

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Recent commentary has questioned the validity of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's use of Rule 36 affirmances in deciding appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One article in particular posits that 35 U.S.C. § 144 and 15 U.S.C.§ 1071(a)(4) require the Federal Circuit to write an opinion in every appeal from the USPTO and therefore the court's use of Rule 36 affirmances, particularly with appeals of cases from the America Invents Act, is improper. This Article presents a reasoned counterpoint to that argument. A complete analysis of the statutory text, the legislative history, …