Law Commons^™

Brief For 72 Professors Of Intellectual Property Law As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents In Oil States Energy V. Greene's Energy, Gregory Reilly, Mark Lemley, Arti Rai

All Faculty Scholarship

This is a brief of 72 IP professors opposing the claim in Oil States that the IPR procedure is unconstitutional.Petitioner argues that only a court – indeed, only a jury – has the power to decide that the United States Patent and Trademark Office erred in granting a patent. That argument flies in the face of the history of patent law and this Court’s precedents.Patents are a creature of statute: as early as 1834, this Court specifically recognized that there is no “natural” or common law right to a patent. Rather, under its Article I power to establish a patent …

Brexit And Ip: The Great Unraveling?, Graeme Dinwoodie, Rochelle Dreyfuss

All Faculty Scholarship

In theory, exit from Brexit will free the United Kingdom from the constraints and burdens of EU membership. It will transfer sovereignty back to the people from the technocratic rule of Brussels; replace the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice with the adjudicative power of national courts; and allow the UK to tailor its market regulation in the particular exigencies of the UK economy. Whether, as a general matter, the restoration of a classic Westphalian state enhances value either nationally or globally is an issue we leave to others to debate.We ask a different question: we explore how well the …

Ip Law Post-Brexit, Graeme Dinwoodie, Richard Arnold, Lionel Bently, Estelle Derclaye

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Razing The Patent Bar, William Hubbard

All Faculty Scholarship

Innovation is vital to economic prosperity, and lawmakers consequently strive to craft patent laws that efficiently promote the discovery and commercialization of new inventions. Commentators have long recognized that legal fees are a significant cost affecting innovation, but remarkably a crucial driver of these costs has largely escaped scrutiny: the Patent Bar. Every year innovators spend billions of dollars on legalfees for representation in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), where inventors apply for patents and potential infringers seek to invalidate issued patents. Supply in this essential legal services market, however, is sharply limited because patent law requires innovators …

Patent Pools And Related Technology Sharing, Erik Hovenkamp, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

A patent "pool" is an arrangement under which patent holders in a common technology commit their patents to a single holder, who then licenses them out to the original patentees and perhaps also to outsiders. The payoffs include both revenue earned as a licensor, and technology acquired by pool members as licensees. Public effects can also be significant. For example, technology sharing of complementary patents can improve product quality and variety. In some information technology markets pools can prevent patents from becoming a costly obstacle to innovation by clearing channels of technology transfer. By contrast, a pool's aggregate output reduction …

Buying Monopoly: Antitrust Limits On Damages For Externally Acquired Patents, Erik N. Hovenkamp, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The “monopoly” authorized by the Patent Act refers to the exclusionary power of individual patents. That is not the same thing as the acquisition of individual patent rights into portfolios that dominate a market, something that the Patent Act never justifies and that the antitrust laws rightfully prohibit.

Most patent assignments are procompetitive and serve to promote the efficient commercialization of patented inventions. However, patent acquisitions may also be used to combine substitute patents from external patentees, giving the acquirer an unearned monopoly position in the relevant technology market. A producer requires only one of the substitutes, but by acquiring …

Patent Venue Exceptionalism After Tc Heartland V. Kraft, Ana Santos Rutschman

All Faculty Scholarship

In late 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,1 a case addressing the interpretation of the special patent venue and the general venue statutes. The case was brought by Heartland, a sweetener manufacturer organized as a limited liability company under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana.2 In 2014, Kraft sued Heartland for infringement of three patents on liquid water enhancers. Although Kraft is headquartered in Illinois, the lawsuit was brought in the District of Delaware, where Heartland is not registered to do business and does not have a regular or established …

Solving Ethical Puzzles To Unlock University Technology Transfer Client Work For An Intellectual Property Legal Clinic, Cynthia L. Dahl

All Faculty Scholarship

Intellectual property (IP) and technology legal clinics are experiencing an unprecedented surge in popularity. Before 2000 there were only five such clinics, but by 2016 there were seventy-four, with fifty added since 2010 alone. As law schools are approving new IP clinics and as practitioners are developing syllabi, there is an increasing need to share knowledge about models that work and how to avoid pitfalls.

One potentially fertile – but traditionally underutilized -- source of client work for an IP and technology clinic is the university technology transfer office (“TTO”), the department that protects, markets, and licenses all university intellectual …

Causing Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

All Faculty Scholarship

Copyright protection attaches to an original work of expression the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible medium. Yet, modern copyright law contains no viable mechanism by which to examine whether someone is causally responsible for the creation and fixation of the work. Whenever the issue of causation arises, copyright law relies on its preexisting doctrinal devices to resolve the issue, in the process cloaking its intuitions about causation in altogether extraneous considerations. This Article argues that copyright law embodies an unstated, yet distinct theory of authorial causation, which connects the element of human agency to a work …

Bruised Soul Of The Artist: A Tribute To Sheldon W. Halpern, Anita L. Allen

All Faculty Scholarship

In an unusual case, Scottish-born painter Peter Doig was accused of wrongfully denying the authenticity of a painting he insisted he did not paint, to the financial detriment of the work’s owner. Doig won the case against him, which commenced in 2013 and continued for three years. United States District Judge Gary Feinerman ultimately ruled that the evidence presented in a week-long trial proved “conclusively” that Doig did not paint the plaintiff owner’s painting. The case raised concerns about whether a living artist should ever be required by law to authenticate a work of art ascribed to him or her …

Redefining The Intended Copyright Infringer, Yvette Joy Liebesman

All Faculty Scholarship

In the mid-1970s, Paul Edmond Dowling and William Samuel Theaker ran an “extensive bootleg record operation.”¹ The two men made unauthorized “phonorecords of unreleased [Elvis] Presley recordings. . . [using] material from a variety of sources, including studio outtakes, acetates, soundtracks from Presley motion pictures, and tapes of Presley concerts and television appearances.”² Dowling was a huge Elvis Presley fan, so he “handled the ‘artistic’ end of the operation, contributing his knowledge of the Presley subculture, seeking out and selecting the musical material, designing the covers and labels, and writing the liner notes.”³ Theaker, who lived in …