Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Supreme Court, New York County, Uhlfelder V. Weinshall, David Schoenhaar
Supreme Court, New York County, Uhlfelder V. Weinshall, David Schoenhaar
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin
Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Faking Equity: A Critique Of The New York Equitable Distribution Statute As Applied To Licenses And Degrees Under The O'Brien Decision, Nicole Giannakis
Faking Equity: A Critique Of The New York Equitable Distribution Statute As Applied To Licenses And Degrees Under The O'Brien Decision, Nicole Giannakis
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Professional Licenses And Substantive Due Process: Can States Compel Physicians To Provide Their Services, Carolyn R. Cody
Professional Licenses And Substantive Due Process: Can States Compel Physicians To Provide Their Services, Carolyn R. Cody
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
#Serviceofprocess @Socialmedia: Accepting Social Media For Service Of Process In The 21st Century, Keely Knapp
#Serviceofprocess @Socialmedia: Accepting Social Media For Service Of Process In The 21st Century, Keely Knapp
Louisiana Law Review
No abstract provided.
Modifying Rand Commitments To Better Price Patents In The Standards Setting Context, Kyle Rozema
Modifying Rand Commitments To Better Price Patents In The Standards Setting Context, Kyle Rozema
The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law
This Article addresses a single problem: how can we allow engineers and scientists from different institutions to collaborate to set the best technical standards possible, not considering intellectual property (“IP”) rights, and then establish the royalty rates for each patent owner after the standard is set? The current system attempting to solve this problem requires patent owner participants to sign a Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“RAND”) commitment. These RAND commitments require the participants to agree an ante, i.e., before the standard is actually set, to license whatever patent rights they may ultimately have in the standard on terms that are reasonable …
District Courts Versus The Usitc: Considering Exclusionary Relief For F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents, Helen H. Ji
District Courts Versus The Usitc: Considering Exclusionary Relief For F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents, Helen H. Ji
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Technological standards allow manufacturers and consumers to rely upon these agreed-upon basic systems to facilitate sales and further invention. However, where these standards involved patented technology, the process of standard-setting raises many concerns at the intersection of antitrust and patent law. As patent holders advocate for their patents to become part of technological standards, how should courts police this activity to prevent patent holdup and other anti-competitive practices? This Note explores the differing approaches to remedies employed by the United States International Trade Commission and the United States District Courts where standard-essential patents are infringed. This Note further proposes that …
Frand's Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, And Licensing Commitments, Jay P. Kesan, Carol M. Hayes
Frand's Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, And Licensing Commitments, Jay P. Kesan, Carol M. Hayes
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Last Sale? Libraries’ Rights In The Digital Age, Jennifer Jenkins
Last Sale? Libraries’ Rights In The Digital Age, Jennifer Jenkins
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Actavis, The Reverse Payment Fallacy, And The Continuing Need For Regulatory Solutions, Daniel A. Crane
Actavis, The Reverse Payment Fallacy, And The Continuing Need For Regulatory Solutions, Daniel A. Crane
Articles
The Actavis decision punted more than it decided. Although narrowing the range of possible outcomes by rejecting the legal rules at the extremes and opting for a rule of reason middle ground, the opinion failed to grapple with the most challenging issues of regulatory policy raised by pharmaceutical patent settlements. In particular, it failed to clearly delineate the social costs of permitting and disallowing patent settlements, avoided grappling with the crucial issues of patent validity and infringement, and erroneously focused on “reverse payments” as a distinctive antitrust problem when equally or more anticompetitive settlements can be crafted without reverse payments. …