Law Commons^™

Curated Innovation, Lital Helman

Akron Law Review

The regulation of innovation-intensive industries is a critical issue for both innovation policy and regulation. In this Article, I propose a new framework to the way innovation-intensive industries are regulated.

My proposal is a four-pronged model, which I term “Curated Innovation.” In the first stage, policymakers would set a standard that would represent the outcome the regulation seeks to achieve. Second, policymakers would launch a competition, where innovative technologies or methods would race to meet the standard that was defined. Third, policymakers would select the methods or technologies that come closest to meeting the standard and create an incentive in …

Are Universities Special?, Shubha Ghosh

Akron Law Review

Universities offer a space for development of ideas, exploration of basic research, and productive outlets for creation and invention. As such, they are key to the innovation environment within which intellectual property laws operate. Although scholarship has focused on universities as institutions counter to other institutions like markets and government, less attention has been paid to universities as organizations, a site for governance through detailed rules and commonly understood norms. When understood as an organization, universities display three overlapping, but distinct models: one of pure research, one of pure commercialization, and one of public purpose. These three models together define …

Intellectual Property Revenue Sharing As A Problem For University Technology Transfer, Jennifer Carter-Johnson

Akron Law Review

The Bayh-Dole Act, often credited with the explosion of university technology transfer, requires universities to incentivize invention disclosure by sharing the royalties generated by patent licensing with inventors. Many scholars have debated the effectiveness of university implementation of this requirement, and, indeed, the low rate of invention disclosure by academic researchers to the university is often a bottleneck in the technology-transfer process.

Unfortunately, most discussions focusing on inventor compliance with Bayh-Dole Act requirements have explored faculty-inventor motivations. However, in most cases, university inventions are joint products of a group of university members including not only faculty but also post-doctoral researchers …

When Tigers Bare Teeth: A Qualitative Study Of University Patent Enforcement, Jacob H. Rooksby

Akron Law Review

Part I provides a brief background on patent infringement litigation involving university plaintiffs, including information on the activity’s costs, historical incidence, and how leading voices within the technology transfer community view the activity. Part II details the methodology used in the study conducted for this article. It describes the research questions that guided the study, its theoretical framework, information on participants and how they were selected for inclusion, and other information concerning data collection. Finally, Part III presents and discusses the study’s findings, which are arrayed thematically.