Law Commons^™

Architects, Artists, Photographers, Property Owners, The Public And Their Rights: Reconciling Vara, The Awcpa, And Copyright Fundamentals, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

Murals, sculpture, and other works of visual art have been parts of buildings, monuments and other structures for centuries, but copyright infringement litigation in the federal courts between artists, architects, photographers, and building owners is a relatively recent phenomenon. The outcome of these lawsuits has an impact on the public seeing works of visual art; experiencing works of visual art on buildings, monuments, and structures; and, looking at photographs of visual art on or in those architectural works. This article focuses on how the Copyright Act’s protection of artists’ rights in their works of visual art on buildings under the …

Protecting The Public Domain And The Right To Use Copyrighted Works: Four Decades Of The Eleventh Circuit’S Copyright Law Jurisprudence, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

This article is about the importance of the copyright law jurisprudence from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This appellate court turns 40 in 2021, and it has rendered many influential copyright law decisions in the last four decades. Its body of work is impressive. This article discusses the court’s important decisions in the following areas: the originality standard; the application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Feist decision to compilations, directories, computer software, architectural works, and other creative works like movies, photographs, and characters; copyright protection for unfixed works; the scope of the government edicts doctrine; and, …

U.S. Supreme Court I.P. Cases, 1810-2019: Measuring & Mapping The Citation Networks, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Intellectual property law in the United States, though shaped by key statutes, has long been a common-law field to a great degree. Many decades of decisional law flesh out the meaning of broad-textured, sparely worded statutes. Given the key roles of patent law and copyright law, both federal, the Supreme Court of the United States is i.p. law’s leading apex court. What are the major topical currents in the Supreme Court’s i.p. cases, both now and over the course of the Court’s work? This study uses network-analysis tools to measure and map the entirety of the Court’s i.p. jurisprudence. It …

Patent Law And The Emigration Of Innovation, Greg Day, Steven Udick

Scholarly Works

Legislators and industry leaders claim that patent strength in the United States has declined, causing firms to innovate in foreign countries. However, scholarship has largely dismissed the theory that foreign patents have any effect on where firms invent, considering that patent law is bound by strict territorial limitations (as a result, one cannot strengthen their patent protection by innovating abroad). In essence, then, industry leaders are deeply divided from scholarship about whether innovative firms seek out jurisdictions offering stronger patent rights, affecting the rate of innovation.

To resolve this puzzle, we offer a novel theory of patent rights — which …

Patent Inequality, Greg Day, W. Michael Schuster

Scholarly Works

Using an original dataset of over 1,000,000 patents and empirical methods, we find that the patent system perpetuates inequalities between powerful and upstart firms. When faced with growing numbers of patents in a field, upstart inventors reduce research and development expenditures, while those already holding many patents increase their innovation efforts. This phenomenon affords entrenched firms disproportionate opportunities to innovate as well as utilize the resulting patents to create barriers to entry (e.g., licensing costs or potential litigation).

A hallmark of this type of behavior is securing large patent holdings to create competitive advantages associated with the size of the …

Law's Semantic Self-Portrait: Discerning Doctrine With Co-Citation Networks And Keywords, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

An apex court’s body of cases has an internal texture, continually augmented by recent citations to earlier, topically related cases. How can we best describe that texture? The citation network shows a path. Specifically, what past Supreme Court cases do more recent Supreme Court cases tend to cite together, as if a topical pair? Using a web of those oft-cited pairs, what noun phrases appear in a given cluster of cases more often, relative to the rate at which those phrases appear in writings more generally? To answer these questions is to map, in detail, a body of decisional law. …

Code Revision Commission V. Public.Resource.Org And The Fight Over Copyright Protection For Annotations And Commentary, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

This article is about the Eleventh Circuit’s 2018 decision in Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org concerning the public edicts doctrine and holding that the State of Georgia’s copyright on the annotations, commentary and analyses in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is invalid. About a third of the States claim copyright in the annotations to their codes so the potential impact of this decision is substantial. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Georgia’s petition for a writ of certiorari on Monday, June 24.

The article’s thesis is that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong and should be reversed. It first discusses the …

Brandeis’S I.P. Federalism: Thoughts On Erie At Eighty, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Justice Brandeis is, in intellectual property law’s precincts, most famous for his lone dissent in International News Service v. Associate Press, the misappropriation case one can find in virtually every i.p. survey casebook (and many property law casebooks as well). But in the wider legal world, Brandeis is likely most famous for his earthquake opinion in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. Do Brandeis’s opinions in these two cases speak to each other? Can considering them together inform broader reflections on the texture of our federalism in the i.p. context? This piece, prepared in connection with an “Erie at Eighty” conference …

Derivative Works And Making Sense Of The Maxim That 'Others Are Free To Copy The Original. They Are Not Free To Copy The Copy.', David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

This is a paper about some of the most entertaining and challenging cases in America’s copyright law jurisprudence concerning derivative works as copyrightable subject matter, and the closely related right to prepare derivative works. The cases are entertaining because they involve very familiar works of authorship, and they are challenging because the rulings are often difficult to reconcile due to the fact that the courts are grappling with copyright’s elusive originality standard as applied to derivative works as well the copyright owner’s right to prepare derivative works. Instead of attempting to say something ‘original’ about originality, my goal for this …

All For Copyright Stand Up And Holler! Three Cheers For Star Athletica And The U.S. Supreme Court’S Perceived And Imagined Separately Test, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

In March 2017 the United States Supreme Court held in Star Athletica L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands Inc. that an artistic feature incorporated into the design of a useful article could be protected by copyright when that feature could be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and imagined separately as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. This two-part test replaces a variety of tests which courts and commentators proposed and applied during the last 40 years. The Star Athletica decision is predicted to be a boon to the fashion and apparel industry, …

A Transformative Use Taxonomy: Making Sense Of The Transformative Use Standard, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

The transformative use standard, which is an important aspect of copyright law’s fair use doctrine, has been confusing and uncertain since 1994 when it was first introduced by the United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. To try to make some sense of this standard, this article extends the work of several scholars who have argued that the massive amount of fair use case law generally divides itself into categories, patterns or policy clusters which have their own internal coherence. This article contends that these observations apply as well to transformative use decisions more particularly, which similarly fit …

Charting Supreme Court Patent Law, Near And Far, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court has been markedly more active in patent law in recent years, as many have noted. How much has patent law changed as a result? The amount of change one sees is, in important respects, a function of the lens through which one looks. In this network analysis of the Supreme Court’s citations to its own case law in all its intellectual property cases from 1947 to 2017, inclusive, I am reminded of Alphonse Karr’s famous quip: “Plus ça change, plus c’est law mȇme chose” — the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing. I report …

Which Supreme Court Cases Influenced Recent Supreme Court Ip Decisions? A Citation Study, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided an increasing number of intellectual property cases — especially patent cases — over the last several terms. Which prior cases influence the stated reasoning in these recent Supreme Court IP cases? A handful of citation studies of supreme courts in the U.S., both state and federal, conducted over the last 40 years suggest that the Court would most often cite its own prior cases; that it would cite its more recent cases more often than its older cases; and that a small number of its prior cases would receive a large share of the …

Droit De Suite, Copyright’S First Sale Doctrine And Preemption Of State Law, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

The primary focus of this article is whether California’s forty-year old droit de suite statute; the California Resale Royalty Act (CRRA), is subject to federal preemption under the Copyright Act. This issue is now being litigated in the Ninth Circuit, and this article concludes that the CRRA is preempted under section 301(a) of the Copyright Act and under the Supremacy Clause because it at odds with copyright’s well-established first sale doctrine.

The basic idea of droit de suite is that each time an artist’s work is resold by a dealer or auction house, the artist is entitled to a royalty, …

Reasonable Certainty & Corpus Linguistics: Judging Definiteness After Nautilus & Teva, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

In Nautilus (2014), the Supreme Court held “that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims...fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” We don’t require perfect clarity because, as Festo (2002) highlights, patentees can’t achieve it. We don’t launch a post hoc judicial salvage operation to rescue slipshod text because, as the functional-claiming cases from the 1930s and 1940s highlight, others can’t adequately plan around it. Reasonably certain notice, then, is just right: § 112 “require[s] that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, …

Abercrombie 2.0 - Can We Get There From Here? The Thoughts On 'Suggestive Fair Use', Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Professor Linford, unlike Caesar’s Antony, seeks not only to bury Abercrombie, but to praise it, at least in part. Using linguistic evidence, both historical and experimental, he would relocate a bobbled boundary—from the descriptive–suggestive transition to the suggestive–arbitrary transition—and thereby establish a reformed template for sorting word marks according to their source-signifying strength. The basic difference between acquired and inherent distinctiveness not only remains in Linford’s account, however; it draws new strength from insights about semantic change. Behold, Abercrombie 2.0! His recent article, which is both provocative and engaging, continues the reconstructive work Linford began in his critique of …

Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney's Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …

The Empty Promise Of Vara: The Restrictive Application Of A Narrow Statute, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) was enacted by Congress in 1990 in order to bring our laws into compliance with Article 6bis of the Berne Convention and to acknowledge that protecting moral rights will foster “a climate of artistic worth and honor that encourages the author in the arduous act of creation.” The passage of this legislation is said to show Congress’s “belief that the art covered by the Act ‘meet[s] a special societal need, and [its] protection and preservation serves an important public interest.’”

Notwithstanding these lofty statements about artistic worth, honor and encouraging creation, VARA is a …

Genomics Unbound: The Scientific And Legal Case Against Patents Based On Naturally Occurring Dna Sequences, Fazal Khan

Scholarly Works

While there have been mixed opinions as to whether gene patents were dead in light of Prometheus,this Article argues that a proper understanding of patent law, genomics, and public policy concerns should lead to no other result. The primary focus of this piece is to rebut certain vested interests in the biotechnology industry and affirm the normative claim that gene patents improperly fetter genomics research and development. First, through the lens of the Myriad case, we will recount why there was such a strong public interest movement against recognizing such patents. Specifically, we will show how patents on naturally occurring …

Error Costs & Ip Law, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

A court in doubt about an ip statute’s scope can err in two ways. It can wrongly narrow the ip right’s reach, or wrongly broaden it. The latter error, however, is worse: A wrongly broadened ip statute effectively creates new property. To correct erroneous broadening, unlike erroneous narrowing, the legislature must thus eliminate a now-established property right. And that is very hard to do. Courts cannot, of course, avoid making at least some mistakes. Courts can, however, prefer the mistakes that are easier, not harder, for the legislature to correct. This essay explores this error-cost-based approach to ip statutes, as …

A Numerus Clausus Principle For Intellectual Property, Christina Mulligan

Scholarly Works

Real property can only be held and conveyed in a small number of forms, such as fee simple, life estate, and lease. This principle is known as numerus clausus, meaning “the number is closed.” For centuries, the principle has been central to the common-law system of property rights. Scholars have justified it as a mechanism for facilitating effective property alienation, maintaining low transaction costs in the buying and selling of property, and keeping the scope of property owners’ rights clear.

In contrast, the numerus clausus principle is essentially nonexistent in intellectual property law. In the context of patents and copyrights, …

Gene Patents No More? Deciphering The Meaning Of Prometheus, Fazal Khan, Lindsay Kessler

Scholarly Works

When Congress enacted the United States Patent Act in 1952, it specified that patentable subject matter included anything “under the sun that is made by man.” Three decades ago the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the first gene patent and ushered in a brave new gold rush. Some genes are associated with specific diseases, so being able to identify these sequences is an essential first step for developing genomic diagnostic tests and therapies. The problem with gene patents is that they allow modern-day prospectors to cordon off access to naturally occurring DNA sequences and exclude others from …

Scaling The Patent System, Christina Mulligan, Timothy B. Lee

Scholarly Works

Why do firms in some industries ignore patents when developing new products? This paper posits a simple but novel answer to this long-puzzling question: firms ignore patents because they are unable to discover the patents their activities might infringe. The costs of finding relevant patents, which we call discovery costs, are prohibitively high.

Not all industries face high patent discovery costs. Chemical patents are "indexable," meaning that relevant patents can be efficiently retrieved by chemical formula. As a result, discovery costs in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are low, and inadvertent infringement by firms in these industries is rare. But …

Bilski V. Kappos: Everything Old Is New Again, Joe Miller

Scholarly Works

My goal in this brief Essay is to introduce the symposium papers by describing the basics of the Bilski case. I also offer a brief thought about where interested observers might turn next in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's § 101 jurisprudence for insights about how that court may implement Bilski's unmistakable revival of Benson and Fook. Specifically, now that the 15-year Alappat/State Street misadventure, with its patent-maximizing "useful, concrete, and tangible result" standard, has come to an end, it is time to revisit the reasoning and results in a rich trove of cases from the …

Substance, Procedure, And The Divided Patent Power, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

The Patent Office has the power to issue rules that “shall govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office,” 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), but not the power to issue substantive rules. It has been this way since 1870, when Congress first granted the Office this regulatory power, in nearly these same words. Just how broad is this grant? How should a reviewing court determine whether a challenged Patent Office rule is procedural (and thus valid) or substantive (and thus invalid)? It is remarkable that in 2010, 140 years after Congress gave the Patent Office this power, the proper sorting standard …

Joint Defense Or Research Joint Venture? Reassessing The Patent-Challenge-Bloc's Antitrust Status, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

A patent challenger who defeats a patent wins spoils that it must share with the world, including all its competitors. This forced sharing undercuts an alleged infringer's incentive to stay in the fight to the finish - especially if the patent owner offers an attractive settlement. Too many settlements, and too few definitive patent challenges, are the result. I have argued previously that a litigation-stage bounty would help correct this tilt against patent challenges, for it would provide cash prizes to successful patent challengers that they alone would enjoy. Even the best-designed bounty, however, would likely fail to encourage patent …

The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act At Twenty: Has Full Protection Made A Difference?, David Shipley

Scholarly Works

Even though our copyright statutes were silent about architecture until 1990, it was well established that plans, blueprints and models were copyrightable writings under the 1909 Act's category of "drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character," and then as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" under the 1976 Act. The scope of an architect's copyright protection was, however, quite limited. The unauthorized copying of plans or blueprints constituted infringement, but most authorities concluded that plans were not infringed by using them, without the architect's permission, to construct the building they depicted. Moreover, the prevailing view was that an …

A Dangerous Undertaking Indeed: Juvenile Humor, Raunchy Jokes, Obscene Materials And Bad Taste In Copyright, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

Some of the most important statements in our nation’s rich copyright jurisprudence were written by Justice Holmes over a century ago in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,a case holding that circus posters were entitled to copyright protection.

In Bleistein, Justice Holmes stated that “[i]t would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [writings, illustrations, music and other forms of expression] outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits.” This announced what has been called the principle of “aesthetic non-discrimination.

“Pull My Finger Fred,” and many other …

Level Of Skill And Long-Felt Need: Notes On A Forgotten Future, Joe Miller

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court's KSR decision transforms the way we think about patent law's ordinary artisan. The ordinary artisan, the Supreme Court states, is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. This transformation, which sweeps aside a contrary precept that had informed the Federal Circuit's nonobviousness jurisprudence for a generation, raises a key question: How do we fill out the rest of our conception, in a given case, of the ordinary artisan's level of skill at the time the invention was made? Reaching back to a large vein of case law typified by Judge Learned Hand's decisions about nonobviousness, …

Remixing Obviousness, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

In April 2007, the Supreme Court, for the first time in 41 years, decided a case about the basic contours of patent law's nonobviousness standard. The case, KSR, upends 25 years of Federal Circuit jurisprudence, and on a legal requirement that every patent must satisfy. In this essay, I show how KSR dismantles two predicates that have long shaped Federal Circuit nonobviousness cases - namely, the intertwined premises that hindsight-driven distortion is the gravest risk to an accurate nonobviousness requirement, and that the person of ordinary skill in the art (from whose perspective nonobviousness is judge) is singularly uncreative. In …