Law Commons^™

Intellectual Property Piracy In The Time Of The Metaverse, James M. Cooper

Faculty Scholarship

The article explores ways in which companies, innovators, artists, and cultural workers can best protect their IP rights in the metaverse. Focusing on IP piracy and counterfeiting, long-time problems in both the real world and online, the article addresses the threats that these illicit activities pose to legitimate commerce, government tax revenues, public safety, and national security. It examines the implications that the metaverse poses for businesses going forward with respect to brand management and revenue source protection and details the manners in which IP rights can be best protected in the metaverse. It concludes with a review of the …

Help Was Not On The Way: Intellectual Property Liability Relief In A Pandemic Era, Kim Vu-Dinh

Faculty Scholarship

On January 21, 2020, the United States recorded its first case of COVID-19. By April of that same year, numerous hospitals across the nation had exhausted entire reserves of personal protective equipment (PPE), with looming uncertainty as to when they would be replenished. As infection numbers increased exponentially, global demand for some types of PPE increased by 1000%.

Volunteers across the nation assembled teams of makers—some professionals, but also scores of amateurs—to craft the critical equipment needed to slow down the onslaught of the pandemic. From creating cloth masks to ventilator pistons, nonprofits and everyday citizens were able to partially …

Proving Copying, Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Peter S. Menell

Faculty Scholarship

Proof that a defendant actually copied from a copyrighted work is a critical part of a claim for copyright infringement. Indeed, absent such copying, there is no infringement. The most common method of proving copying involves the use of circumstantial evidence, consisting of proof that a defendant had “access” to the protected work, and a showing of “similarities” between the copy and the protected work. In inferring copying from the combination of such evidence, courts have for many decades developed a framework known as the “inverse ratio rule,” which allows them to modulate the level of proof needed on access …

We're All Pirates Now: Making Do In A Precarious Ip Ecosystem, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

Fifteen years after the Piracy Paradox explained how most anti-copying protection is unnecessary for a thriving fashion industry, we face another piracy paradox: with broader and stronger IP laws and a digital economy in which IP enforcement is more draconian than ever, what explains the ubiquity of everyday copying, sharing, re-making and re-mixing practices that are the life blood of the internet's expressive and innovative ecosystems? Drawing on empirical data from a decade of research, this short essay provides two examples of this "new piracy paradox": a legal regime that ostensibly punishes piracy in a culture in which it is …

The Patently Unexceptional Venue Statute, Paul Gugliuzza, Megan M. La Belle

Faculty Scholarship

Legal doctrines developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are often derided as “exceptionalist,” particularly on issues of procedure. The court’s interpretation of the venue statute for patent infringement suits seems, at first glance, to fit that mold. According to the Federal Circuit, the statute places few constraints on the plaintiff’s choice of forum when suing corporate defendants. This permissive venue rule has lead critics to suggest that the court is, once again, outside the mainstream. The Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods would seem to indicate that those critics …

Regulating Patent Assertions, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have seen a proliferation of statutes regulating and lawsuits challenging patent enforcement conduct. The Federal Circuit, however, has held that acts of patent enforcement are illegal only if there is clear and convincing evidence both that the patent holder’s infringement allegations were objectively baseless and that the patent holder knew or should have known its allegations were baseless. This chapter summarizes recent efforts by state governments and the federal government to control patent enforcement behavior, questions the broad immunity the Federal Circuit has conferred on patent holders, and seeks to improve pending federal legislation governing patent enforcement. In …

Early Filing And Functional Claiming, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A major problem in the patent system is that many patents claim far more than the patentee actually invented. In his perceptive article, Ready for Patenting, Mark Lemley argues that this overclaiming is caused in part by legal doctrines that encourage inventors to file a patent application as early as possible, often before — or even instead of — building their invention. Patents issued from early-filed applications, Lemley argues, tend to be overly broad because the applicant does not yet know how the invention actually works.

This response essay, part of the Boston University Law Review’s symposium on Notice Failure …

How Oracle Erred: Functionality, Useful Articles, And The Future Of Computer Copyright, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

In Oracle v. Google (2015), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the " method header " components of a dominant computer program were uncopyrightable as " merging " with the headers' ideas or function. Google had copied the headers to ease the ability of third-party programmers to interact with Google's Android platform. The court rebuffed the copyrightability challenge; it reasoned that because the plaintiff's expression might have been written in alternative forms, there was no " merger " of idea and expression. But the Oracle court may have been asking the wrong question. In Lotus v. Borland (1995), the owner of …

An Intentional Tort Theory Of Patents, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Article challenges the dogma of U.S. patent law that direct infringement is a strict liability tort. Impermissibly practicing a patented invention does create liability even if the infringer did not intend to infringe or know about the patent. The consensus is that this is a form of strict liability. The flaw in the consensus is that it proves too little, for the same is true of intentional torts: intent to commit the tort is unnecessary, and ignorance of the legal right is no excuse. What is relevant is intent to perform the action that the law deems tortious. So …

Patent Trolls And Preemption, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Patent law is usually thought to be the domain of the federal government, not state governments. Yet over half the states have recently passed statutes outlawing unfair or deceptive assertions of patent infringement. The statutes are aimed at fighting so-called patent trolls, particularly those who send letters to users of allegedly infringing technology — as opposed to the manufacturers of that technology — demanding that each user purchase a license for a few thousand dollars or else face an infringement suit. The Federal Circuit, however, has held that state law claims challenging acts of patent enforcement are preempted by the …

Patent Litigation Reform: The Courts, Congress, And The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Barely three years after passing the America Invents Act, Congress is again considering patent reform legislation. At least fourteen patent reform bills were introduced in the recently concluded 113th Congress. Several of those bills focused specifically on patent litigation, proposing, among other things, to impose heightened pleading requirements on plaintiffs, to limit discovery, and to create a presumption that the losing party should pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees. None of the proposals became law, but one of the bills (the Innovation Act) passed the House of Representatives. In addition, scholars continue to call for reform, and Republican members of Congress …

Betty Boop And The Return Of Aesthetic Functionality: A Bitter Medicine Against "Mutant Copyrights"?, Irene Calboli

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers a brief overview of the history and developments of the doctrine of aesthetic functionality in the United States and examines the recent decisions in Fleischer Studios, Inc v AVELA, Inc . In particular, the article argues that the courts in Fleischer added an important element to the interpretation of the doctrine, namely the fact that the courts seemed willing to resort to aesthetic functionality to counter the consequences resulting from the practice of using trade mark law as an additional form of protection for copyrighted, or once copyrighted, creative works.

Patent Law Federalism, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Most lawsuits arising under federal law can be filed in either state or federal court. Patent suits, however, may be filed only in federal court. Why do patent cases receive exceptional treatment? The usual answer is that federal courts, unlike state courts, provide uniformity and expertise in patent matters. This Article analyzes whether exclusive jurisdiction actually serves those policy aims and concludes that the uniformity-expertise rationale is overstated. If exclusive federal patent jurisdiction is to be justified, attention must also be given to pragmatic considerations, such as the respective quality of state and federal trial courts, the courts’ ability to …

Explaining The ‘Unpredictable’: An Empirical Analysis Of U.S. Patent Infringement Awards, Samantha Zyontz, Michael J. Mazzeo, Jonathan Hillel

Faculty Scholarship

Patent infringement awards are commonly thought to be unpredictable, which raises concerns that patents can lead to unjust enrichment and impede the progress of innovation. We investigate the unpredictability of patent damages by conducting a large-scale econometric analysis of award values. We begin by analyzing the outcomes of 340 cases decided in US federal courts between 1995 and 2008 in which infringement was found and damages were awarded. Our data include the amount awarded, along with information about the litigants, case specifics and economic value of the patents-at-issue. Using these data, we construct an econometric model that explains over 75% …

Reclaiming Copyright From The Outside In: What The Downfall Hitler Meme Means For Transformative Works, Fair Use, And Parody, Aaron Schwabach

Faculty Scholarship

¶Continuing advances in consumer information technology have made video editing, once difficult, into a relatively simple matter. The average consumer can easily create and edit videos, and post them online. Inevitably many of these posted videos incorporate existing copyrighted content, raising questions of infringement, derivative versus transformative use, fair use, and parody.¶ ¶This article looks at several such works, with its main focus on one category of examples: the Downfall Hitler meme. Downfall Hitler videos take as their starting point a particular sequence - Hitler's breakdown rant - from the 2004 German film Der Untergang [Downfall in the US]. The …

Ip Injury And The Institutions Of Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

This paper reviews Creation Without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, the pathbreaking book by Christina Bohannan and Herbert Hovenkamp (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). The Review begins by summarizing the book’s descriptive insights and analyzing one of its important normative proposals: the adoption of an IP injury requirement. This requirement would demand that infringement plaintiffs prove -- before obtaining damages or an injunction -- an injury to the incentive to innovate. After explaining how this requirement is easy to justify under governing law and is largely consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions in the field of patent law, the …

Not So Obvious After All: Patent Law's Nonobviousness Requirement, Ksr, And The Fear Of Hindsight Bias, Glynn S. Lunney Jr, Christian T. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Before the creation of the Federal Circuit in 1982, nonobviousness served as the primary gatekeeper for patents. When patent holders sued for infringement and lost, more than sixty percent of the time, they lost on the grounds that their patent was obvious. With the advent of the Federal Circuit, nonobviousness became a much less difficult hurdle to surmount. From 1982 until 2005, when patent holders sued for infringement and lost, obviousness was the reason in less than fifteen percent of the cases. While obviousness remained formally a requirement of patent protection, there can be little doubt that the Federal Circuit …

Eighth Circuit Trademark Opinions, Kenneth L. Port

Faculty Scholarship

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ trademark jurisprudence has been truly fair and balanced since the 1946 passage of the Lanham Act. The court has created this fair and balanced jurisprudence by creating firm standards and sticking to them. Although not the most popular circuit in which to find a trademark case, the Eighth Circuit has kept a constant vigil to assure that trademark plaintiffs do not dominate over trademark defendants. This balanced approach to trademark law is consistent with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which recently held that “advertising injury” included trademark infringement, and therefore the defendant’s insurance carrier had …

Inducers And Authorisers: A Comparison Of The Us Supreme Court's Grokster Decision And The Australian Federal Court's Kazaa Ruling, Jane C. Ginsburg, Sam Ricketson

Faculty Scholarship

On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court announced its much-awaited decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. A few months after this, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision at first instance in relation to parallel litigation in that country concerning the KaZaa file sharing system. Both decisions repay careful consideration of the way in which the respective courts have addressed the relationship between the protection of authors' rights and the advent of new technologies, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer networks.

In the Grokster case, songwriters, record producers and motion picture producers alleged that two popular …

Infringement Once Removed: The Perils Of Hyperlinking To Infringing Content, Stacey Dogan

Faculty Scholarship

This Article contends that the basic premise of Sony---that context and effect must play a role in evaluating allegations of secondary liability for copyright infringement-has application beyond the isolated case of equipment manufacture. More specifically, I propose a modified Sony framework for evaluating secondary liability for linking to infringing content. While this approach repudiates the strict view of secondary liability in favor of a more nuanced analysis, it stops short of advocating wholesale immunity for linkers. To the contrary, I contend that certain links, like certain acts of direct infringement, threaten copyright law's incentives with few compensating benefits to the …

When Does A Work Infringe The Derivative Works Right Of A Copyright Owner?, Amy B. Cohen

Faculty Scholarship

Consider the following fact situation: A, an artist, designs art work and registers the copyright in that art work. A then licenses P to publish note cards using the art work. The note cards are published by P and distributed to retail card stores. T purchases several hundred cards and then takes each card, glues it carefully to a ceramic tile, and sells the tiles for a profit as "tile art" that purchasers can use to decorate walls, counters, even floors. If A now sues T for copyright infringement, how should the court rule? Has T infringed A's copyright?

In …