Law Commons^™

Understanding Access To Things: A Knowledge Commons Perspective, Michael J. Madison

Book Chapters

This chapter explores the related ideas of access to knowledge resources and shared governance of those resources, often known as commons. Knowledge resources consist of many types and forms. Some are tangible, and some are intangible. Some are singular; some are reproduced in copies. Some are singular or unique; some are collected or pooled. Some are viewed, used, or consumed only by a single person; for some resources, collective or social consumption is the norm. Any given resource often has multiple attributes along these dimensions, depending on whether one examines the resource’s physical properties, its creative or inventive properties, or …

Information Abundance And Knowledge Commons, Michael J. Madison

Book Chapters

Standard accounts of IP law describe systems of legal exclusion intended to prompt the production and distribution of intellectual resources, or information and knowledge, by making those things artificially scarce. The argument presented here frames IP law instead as one of several possible institutional responses to the need to coordinate the use of intellectual resources given their natural abundance, and not necessarily useful or effective responses at that. The chapter aims to shift analytic and empirical frameworks from those grounded in law to those grounded in governance, and from IP law in isolation to IP law as part of resource …

Confusing Patent Eligibility, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Patent law — and in particular the law governing patent eligibility — is in a state of crisis. This crisis is one of profound confusion. Confusion exists because the current approach to determining patent eligibility confuses the relevant policies underlying numerous discrete patent law doctrines, and because the current approach lacks administrability. Ironically, the result of all this confusion is seemingly clear: the result seems to be that, when challenged, patent applications and issued patents probably do not satisfy the requirement of eligibility. At least that is the perception. A resulting concern, therefore, is that the current environment substantially reduces …

Only A Pawn In The Game: Rethinking Induced Patent Infringement, W. Keith Robinson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A party that causes another to infringe a patent may be liable for induced infringement. Recently, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have interpreted the inducement statute in a way that may be problematic. For example, in a suit for induced patent infringement a plaintiff must show that an accused party had specific intent to cause infringement. The defendant can rebut allegations of induced infringement by showing that he had a good faith belief that he did not infringe the patent. However, a defendant’s good faith belief that the patent is invalid is no longer a defense to inducement. …

Awarding Attorney Fees And Deterring 'Patent Trolls', W. Keith Robinson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A court may award attorney fees to a prevailing party in a patent trial under exceptional circumstances. Since 2005, courts had applied a rigid formula to determine whether a case was exceptional. In the summer of 2014, the Supreme Court rejected this rigid test. Instead, the Court held that an exceptional case is “simply one that stands out from others.” Finding a case exceptional, the Court said, was at the discretion of the district court and only reviewable on appeal for an abuse of discretion.

A little over a year later, one interesting question is: how do district courts now …

Who Owns Gene Editing? Patents In The Time Of Crispr, Jacob S. Sherkow

Other Publications

New gene-editing technologies, like CRISPR, promise revolutionary advances in biology and medicine. However, several patent disputes in the USA and UK may have complicated who can use CRISPR. What does this mean for the future of gene editing?

Intellectual Property In News? Why Not?, Sam Ricketson, Jane C. Ginsburg

Faculty Scholarship

This Chapter addresses arguments for and against property rights in news, from the outset of national law efforts to safeguard the efforts of newsgathers, through the various unsuccessful attempts during the early part of the last century to fashion some form of international protection within the Berne Convention on literary and artistic works and the Paris Convention on industrial property. The Chapter next turns to contemporary endeavors to protect newsgatherers against “news aggregation” by online platforms. It considers the extent to which the aggregated content might be copyrightable, and whether, even if the content is protected, various exceptions set out …

Protecting Products Versus Platforms, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

Patents have long been the most important legal assets of biotech companies. Increasingly, however, biotech firms find themselves on one side of a divide: as either traditional product companies or platform companies. Given the differences between these two types of business models, the merits of intellectual property (IP) protection vary between them. This article explores how those differences relate to biotech startups and entrepreneurs seeking to protect their inventions.

The Changing Life Science Patent Landscape, Arti K. Rai, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

Over the past two decades, patent law in the life sciences has been buffeted by numerous controversies. With courts, legislatures and patent offices all responding, one could be forgiven for believing that the main constant has been change. In the following article, we look back at some of the major events in life science intellectual property (IP) law and business practice over the past 20 years and then suggest where IP practice in the life sciences may be heading in the coming years.

Describing Drugs: A Response To Professors Allison And Ouellette, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

Profs. Allison and Ouellette’s Article, How Courts Adjudicate Patent Definiteness and Disclosure, 65 Duke L.J.609 (2015), on courts’ adjudication of certain patent disputes presents some surprising data: pharmaceutical patents litigated to judgment fare substantially worse on written-description analyses if they are not part of traditional pioneer-generic litigation. This Response engages in several hypotheses for this disparity and examines the cases that make up Allison and Ouellette’s dataset. An analysis of these cases finds that the disparity can be best explained by technological and judicial idiosyncrasies in each case, rather than larger differences among pharmaceutical patent cases. This finding contextualizes …

The Objectives And Principles Of The Wto Trips Agreement: A Detailed Anatomy, Alison Slade

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Article 7 (Principles) and Article 8 (Objectives) are prominent within the text of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, yet have figured sparingly in the reasoning of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This discrepancy is accentuated when considered in light of three key factors. First, the pioneering step taken by TRIPS negotiators to include broad declarations of intent within the operative text. Second, the 2001 reinforcement given to these provisions in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. Finally, the verbatim replication of these provisions within other international IP instruments, notably, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the WIPO …

"Courts Have Twisted Themselves Into Knots": Us Copyright Protection For Applied Art, Jane C. Ginsburg

Faculty Scholarship

In copyright law, the marriage of beauty and utility often proves fraught. Domestic and international law makers have struggled to determine whether, and to what extent, copyright should cover works that are both artistic and functional. The U.S. Copyright Act protects a work of applied art "only if, and only to the extent that, its design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." While the policy goal to separate the aesthetic from the functional is clear, courts' application of the statutory "separability" …

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 …

Regulatory Property: The New Ip, Robin C. Feldman

Robin C Feldman

Private Technology (Foreword), Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean