Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 11 of 11

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, Christopher B. Seaman Sep 2015

The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

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 …


It’S The End Of The Biological Patent World As We Know It, And Consumer Watchdog Feels Fine: How Consumer Watchdog Is Attempting To Kill The Future Of Horticultural Research, George R. Holton Jul 2015

It’S The End Of The Biological Patent World As We Know It, And Consumer Watchdog Feels Fine: How Consumer Watchdog Is Attempting To Kill The Future Of Horticultural Research, George R. Holton

George R Holton

No abstract provided.


Not So Obvious After All: Patent Law's Nonobviousness Requirement, Ksr, And The Fear Of Hindsight Bias, Glynn S. Lunney Jr, Christian T. Johnson Jul 2015

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

Glynn Lunney

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 …


National Treatment, National Interest And The Public Domain, Margaret Ann Wilkinson Jun 2015

National Treatment, National Interest And The Public Domain, Margaret Ann Wilkinson

Margaret Ann Wilkinson

The concept of the "public domain" is a powerful rhetorical element in he policy debates involving intellectual property. But is it a stable and useful concept for analyzing information issues? Can the notion of the public domain and the concept of the information commons be separated? Is the notion of the public domain merely another way of expressing the public interest? This paper canvassed the literature, seeking a theoretically consistent definition for public domain that was equally applicable across the copyright, trademark and patent spheres. The analysis demonstrated that there is no such construct. The paper also reviews the findings …


Layered Patent System, Michael Risch Feb 2015

Layered Patent System, Michael Risch

Michael Risch

The patent system is usually described in terms of opposites, like producers versus trolls or software versus pharma. But the reality is a far more complex set of layers, including enforcers, patentees, and technology. This study of twenty-five years of patent litigation by highly litigious non-practicing entities and randomly selected plaintiffs explores each of these layers and shows ways that enforcement, patenting, and technology interact with each others.

Data related to more than one thousand patent outcomes in more than two thousand cases leads to some surprising findings. For example, while the litigious NPEs enforced many patents from product companies …


Do Patent Licensing Demands Mean Innovation?, Robin C. Feldman, Mark A. Lemley Dec 2014

Do Patent Licensing Demands Mean Innovation?, Robin C. Feldman, Mark A. Lemley

Robin C Feldman

A commonly offered justification for patent trolls or non-practicing entities (NPEs) is that they serve as a middleman, facilitating innovation and bringing new technology from inventors to those who can implement it. We survey those involved in patent licensing to see how often patent license demands actually led to innovation or technology transfer. We find that very few patent license demands actually lead to new innovation; most simply involve payment for the freedom to keep doing what the licensee was already doing. Surprisingly, this is true not only of NPE licenses but even of licenses from product-producing companies and universities. …


Patentable Subject Matter As A Policy Lever, Amy L. Landers Dec 2014

Patentable Subject Matter As A Policy Lever, Amy L. Landers

Amy L. Landers

Patents are intended to be used as instruments to further policy. One potent policy driver to accomplish such goals is through the legal construction and application of the term “invention." Internationally, various legal authorities have recognized that this definition can be crafted in ways that are targeted to have real-world consequences. In the U.S., the open-ended framework of the Patent Act's section 101 invites judicial interpretation to effectuate the law's purposes. Ideally, these determinations should rest on articulated, transparent reasoning so that, under a common law system, those policies can serve as touchstones to ensure that the relevant precedents are …


The Anti-Patent: A Proposal For Startup Immunity, Amy L. Landers Dec 2014

The Anti-Patent: A Proposal For Startup Immunity, Amy L. Landers

Amy L. Landers

The controversy surrounding the current implementation of the patent system is well known. Some question whether the system has become entirely dysfunctional and disincentives innovation, particularly as the law operates within some industries. Moreover, early stage companies, particularly those just beginning to gain success, are particularly vulnerable targets for lawsuits. Notably, these same companies can be rich sources of important technological innovation.

Because the U.S. has always had a patent system, it is impossible to understand the intended and unintended consequences of eliminating this form of intellectual property protection even in a limited manner. As economist Fritz Machlup stated in …


Patenting Physibles: A Fresh Perspective For Claiming 3d-Printable Products, Daniel Harris Brean Dec 2014

Patenting Physibles: A Fresh Perspective For Claiming 3d-Printable Products, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

To successfully combat patent infringement, it is necessary to have an effective way to extinguish infringement at the source. In the case of 3D printing, this means being able to enforce one’s patent against those who are selling or distributing the printable CAD files. But the law does not currently provide patent protection for CAD files. Because this severely limits the enforceability of patents in the emerging 3D printing space, it discourages innovation and needs to be remedied.

Beauregard claims are perhaps the best existing option for patents that might encompass CAD files, but Beauregard claims are still largely ineffective …


Ending Unreasonable Royalties: Why Nominal Damages Are Adequate To Compensate Patent Assertion Entities For Infringement, Daniel Harris Brean Dec 2014

Ending Unreasonable Royalties: Why Nominal Damages Are Adequate To Compensate Patent Assertion Entities For Infringement, Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

According to Section 284 of the Patent Act, damages for patent infringement are supposed to be compensatory. The statute only allows for recovery of "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement." Even though it qualifies that such damages must be "in no event less than a reasonable royalty," this language cannot be read to avoid the fundamental requirement that, as compensatory damages, any recovery must stem from actual harm suffered by the patent owner. Absent proof of actual harm, only nominal damages should be recoverable. Yet patentees who suffer no actual harm are regularly obtaining considerable amounts of money from …


Empirical Studies Of Claim Construction, Jonas Anderson Dec 2014

Empirical Studies Of Claim Construction, Jonas Anderson

J. Jonas Anderson

Patent claims define the scope of the patent right and hence are central to the operation of the patent system. Patent prosecutors devote substantial effort to crafting patent claims so as to maximize the scope of their right without “reading on” prior art (and thereby defeating novelty). Businesses seeking to enter a technology marketplace must be careful to avoid encroaching patent claims. Thus, when patentees enforce their rights, the interpretation of claim boundaries guides both validity and infringement analysis. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments (517 U.S. 370 (1996)), holding that “the construction of a patent, …