Law Commons^™

The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

Trade secrecy is unique among the major intellectual property (IP) doctrines because it is governed primarily by state law. Recently, however, a number of influential actors — including legislators, academics, and organizations representing IP attorneys and owners — have proposed creating a private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation under federal law. Proponents assert that federalizing trade secrecy would provide numerous benefits, including substantive uniformity, the availability of a federal forum for misappropriation litigation, and the creation of a unified national regime governing IP rights.

This Article engages in the first systematic critique of the claim that federalizing …

Ongoing Royalties In Patent Cases After Ebay: An Empirical Assessment And Proposed Framework, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

While the Federal Circuit has authorized the award of ongoing royalties as an equitable alternative to a permanent injunction, numerous questions regarding such relief remain unresolved, including when ongoing royalties should be awarded, the structure and methodology for computing an award, and possible enhancement of the royalty rate for post-judgment willful infringement. Despite lower courts' attempts to grapple with these issues, a comprehensive methodology for determining ongoing royalties has yet to emerge.

This Article seeks to fill this void in two ways. First, it empirically assesses how courts have resolved claims for ongoing royalties by prevailing patentees. It does so …

Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Neither Party: Halo Elecs. Inc. V. Pulse Elecs. Inc. And Stryker Corp. V. Zimmer, Inc., Christopher B. Seaman, Jason Rantanen

Scholarly Articles

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of several intellectual property law professors in Halo v. Pulse and Stryker v. Zimmer regarding the appropriate standard for enhancing (increasing) damages under section 284 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 284. It advances three primary arguments. First, it asserts that in light of the history of the statutory text and judicial precedent, willful infringement is the appropriate standard (and thus the only valid basis) for awarding enhanced damages under § 284. Second, it contends that Federal Circuit’s two-part, objective/subjective test for determining willfulness articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, …

The Local Rules Of Patent Procedure, Megan M. La Belle

Scholarly Articles

Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary have all had “patent litigation abuse” on their minds recently. The concern is that too many frivolous patent suits are being filed and used to extract unwarranted settlements. The story is that bad actors—patent assertion entities (PAEs) or, more pejoratively, “patent trolls”—are suing small companies and end users for patent infringement even though PAEs make no patented products themselves. Over the past two years, Congress proposed nearly a dozen bills aimed at curbing patent litigation abuse, the Executive took various anti-troll measures, and the Supreme Court decided a pair of cases that make it …

Patent Boundaries, Elizabeth I. Winston

Scholarly Articles

A patent grants a limited right to exclude others from practicing an invention within the United States, its territories and possessions. Much has been written about the limits of the patent grant and how to determine what the protected invention may be. At the same time, scholars have not systemically analyzed the geographic limitations of United States patents, a critical component of a patentee’s limited right. A patent’s geographical scope is not simple to discern. Commentators have neither analyzed the patent boundaries collectively nor delineated the scope of patent sovereignty on land, in the air and at sea. Technology has …

Who's The Vandal? The Recent Controversy Over The Destruction Of 5pointz And How Much Protection Does Moral Rights Law Give To Authorized Aerosol Art?, Susanna Frederick Fischer

Scholarly Articles

This paper considers the extent to which federal moral rights law protects authorized graffiti and aerosol art against destruction, in the context of the controversy over the destruction of 5Pointz. 5Pointz, a sprawling complex of warehouse buildings in Queens, was a Mecca for aerosol art. The buildings’ owners ordered the demolition of 5Pointz after the November 2013 order by New York federal district judge Frederic Block denying the artists a preliminary injunction to stop destruction under the federal moral rights statute, the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). This paper argues that Judge Block erred in finding that the transient nature …