Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
Coloring Inside The Lines: A Look At Qualitex V. Jacobson, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 49 (2022), Willajeanne Mclean
Coloring Inside The Lines: A Look At Qualitex V. Jacobson, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 49 (2022), Willajeanne Mclean
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Symposium On The Retirement Of Justice Stephen Breyer, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 35 (2022), William Ford
Symposium On The Retirement Of Justice Stephen Breyer, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 35 (2022), William Ford
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
A La Recherche De Breyer Perdu, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 38 (2022), Shubha Ghosh
A La Recherche De Breyer Perdu, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 38 (2022), Shubha Ghosh
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Justice Breyer And Patent Eligibility, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 71 (2022), David Taylor
Justice Breyer And Patent Eligibility, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 71 (2022), David Taylor
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Justice Breyer: No Friend To Ip Law, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 58 (2022), Kevin Noonan
Justice Breyer: No Friend To Ip Law, 21 Uic Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 58 (2022), Kevin Noonan
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court: A Help Or A Hindrance To The Federal Circuit's Mission?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 298 (2018), Donald Dunner
The Supreme Court: A Help Or A Hindrance To The Federal Circuit's Mission?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 298 (2018), Donald Dunner
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Before the establishment of the Federal Circuit, the system of patent enforcement was deeply flawed, with the circuit courts then responsible for reviewing district court patent decisions harboring widely varying attitudinal views in the interpretation of the patent law. Suggestions for solving the problem through a single specialized appellate patent court were consistently rejected due to general hostility to specialized courts. The formation of the Federal Circuit in 1982 initially appeared to solve the problem in providing uniform and predictable rules governing the enforcement of patents, an essential aspect of the court’s mission. The Supreme Court did not provide any …
Samsung V. Apple, Life Technologies V. Promega, Sca Hygiene Products V. First Quality Baby Products, Tc Heartland V. Kraft, Impression Products V. Lexmark, And Sandoz V. Amgen: The U.S. Supreme Court Decides Six Patent Cases In 2016-17, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 162 (2017), Sue Ann Ganske
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The United States Supreme Court decided six very important patent cases in the 2016-17 term, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., called the “design patent case of the century,” Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., an international supply chain patent case, SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, where the doctrine of laches was not a defense in a patent infringement case, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which dealt with patent venue statute, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., which held that the authorized first sale of a patented item exhausts the …
Reverse Payment Settlements: The U.S. Supreme Court Has Finally Agreed To Resolve The Issue, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 787 (2013), Tyler Cho
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act provides a mechanism for litigating pharmaceutical patent infringement disputes. Many of these cases have been settled with “reverse payments” from the brand to the generic in return for delayed generic entry. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has contested a number of these settlements with mixed results. On July 16, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision holding that pharmaceutical patent settlements that restrict generic entry and contain a payment to the generic company are presumptively unlawful under U.S. antitrust laws. By holding that a patent settlement can …
Has The Supreme Court Incorrectly Expanded § 271(E)(1) To Risk A Regulatory Taking?, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 216 (2006), Tara Stuart
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The U.S.S.C. expanded the scope of the Hatch-Waxman Act’s safe harbor provision in Merck III to include protection for infringing use of any type of invention as long as a researcher intended to perform research reasonably relevant to FDA approval. This broad interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and the policies of the U.S. patent system. Many patent owners may unnecessarily experience such a reduction in their property rights as to constitute a regulatory taking. The proposed narrow interpretation would rectify the constitutional problems and inconsistencies in infringement exemptions. Section 271(e)(1) should apply only to …
Recent Developments In Copyright Law: Selected U.S. Supreme Court, Court Of Appeals, And District Court Opinions Between February 1, 2005 And May 1, 2006, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 40 (2006), Tyler T. Ochoa
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
This article highlights nine selected U.S. copyright law decisions handed down between February 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006. Two of the decisions concern peer-to-peer file sharing, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in MGM v. Grokster. One of the decisions questions the applicability of the idea/expression dichotomy to works of visual art. Two of the decisions discuss ownership of the renewal rights in a work under the 1909 Act when the author is deceased. One of the decisions interprets the requirement that an author register his or her work before filing an infringement action. Two of the decisions …
Can This Brokered Marriage Be Saved? The Changing Relationship Between The Supreme Court And Federal Circuit In Patent Law Jurisprudence, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 201 (2003), Debra D. Peterson
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Congress created the Federal Circuit, in part, to provide uniformity in patent decisions throughout the United States and stability in patent law. During the first decade of the Federal Circuit’s existence, the Supreme Court largely deferred to the Federal Circuit in patent law decisions. However, the Supreme Court’s initial deference to the Federal Circuit has since been replaced by critical view of the Federal Circuit’s decisions and its decision-making processes. This article proposes that the Supreme Court has correctly abandoned its deferential mindset toward the Federal Circuit since the Federal Circuit was never intended to be the de facto Supreme …
How The Supreme Court Decides To Review Intellectual Property Cases, 3 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 19 (2003), Matthew M. Neumeier
How The Supreme Court Decides To Review Intellectual Property Cases, 3 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 19 (2003), Matthew M. Neumeier
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Because Supreme Court review is essentially discretionary, it is increasingly rare for the Court to hear an argument concerning Intellectual Property rights. However the Supreme Court will critically review cases that belong in one of four distinct categories. These include cases in which: (1) lower court decisions conflict, (2) lower courts have departed from accepted and usual court proceedings, (3) an important federal question is decided, and (4) lower courts have departed from Supreme Court precedent. This article provides practitioners with some guidance in determining whether the Supreme Court is likely to review a lower court decision on an Intellectual …
Festo: A Jurisprudential Test For The Supreme Court?, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 69 (2001), James E. Hopenfeld
Festo: A Jurisprudential Test For The Supreme Court?, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 69 (2001), James E. Hopenfeld
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
This article contends that the Federal Circuit's decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., now on review before the United States Supreme Court, is more than just a controversial patent case. Festo raises, in addition, important issues with respect to stare decisis and the power and authority of the Federal Circuit and appeals courts in general. The jurisprudential issues raised by Festo are revealed by an analysis of the different methods used by the Federal Circuit majority on one hand, and Judge Michel's dissent on the other, in applying Supreme Court precedent to reach a legal conclusion. …