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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 22 of 22

Full-Text Articles in Law

Whiskey Sour: An Ip Evaluation Of Nathan Green's Contribution To Jack Daniel's Whiskey And How That Contribution Led To An Inequitable Distribution Of Generational Wealth, Emmanuel Onochie Jan 2020

Whiskey Sour: An Ip Evaluation Of Nathan Green's Contribution To Jack Daniel's Whiskey And How That Contribution Led To An Inequitable Distribution Of Generational Wealth, Emmanuel Onochie

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

None.


Invention Of A Slave, Brian L. Frye Jan 2018

Invention Of A Slave, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On June 10, 1858, the Attorney General issued an opinion titled Invention of a Slave, concluding that a slave owner could not patent a machine invented by his slave, because neither the slave owner nor his slave could take the required patent oath. The slave owner could not swear to be the inventor, and the slave could not take an oath at all. The Patent Office denied at least two patent applications filed by slave owners, one of which was filed by Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, who later became the President of the Confederate States of America. But it ...


The Rule Of Reason, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2018

The Rule Of Reason, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Antitrust’s rule of reason was born out of a thirty-year (1897-1927) division among Supreme Court Justices about the proper way to assess multi-firm restraints on competition. By the late 1920s the basic contours of the rule for restraints among competitors was roughly established. Antitrust policy toward vertical restraints remained much more unstable, however, largely because their effects were so poorly understood.

This article provides a litigation field guide for antitrust claims under the rule of reason – or more precisely, for situations when application of the rule of reason is likely. At the time pleadings are drafted and even up ...


Reasonable Patent Exhaustion, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2018

Reasonable Patent Exhaustion, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

A lengthy tug of war between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals may have ended when the Supreme Court held that the sale of a patented article exhausts the patentee seller’s rights to enforce restrictions on that article through patent infringement suits. Further, reversing the Federal Circuit, the parties cannot bargain around this rule through the seller’s specification of conditions stated at the time of sale, no matter how clear. No inquiry need be made into the patentee’s market power, anticompetitive effects, or other types of harms, whether enforcement of the condition is ...


Patent Exhaustion And Federalism: A Historical Note, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Apr 2016

Patent Exhaustion And Federalism: A Historical Note, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

This essay, written as a response to John F. Duffy and Richard Hynes, Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual Property, 102 VA. L. REV. 1 (2016), argues that the patent exhaustion (first sale) doctrine developed as a creature of federalism, intended to divide the line between the law of patents, which by that time had become exclusively federal, and the law of patented things, which were governed by the states. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century courts were explicit on the point, in decisions stretching from the 1850s well into the twentieth century.

By the second half of ...


The Emergence Of Classical American Patent Law, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2016

The Emergence Of Classical American Patent Law, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

One enduring historical debate concerns whether the American Constitution was intended to be "classical" -- referring to a theory of statecraft that maximizes the role of private markets and minimizes the role of government in economic affairs. The most central and powerful proposition of classical constitutionalism is that the government's role in economic development should be minimal. First, private rights in property and contract exist prior to any community needs for development. Second, if a particular project is worthwhile the market itself will make it occur. Third, when the government attempts to induce development politics inevitably distorts the decision making ...


The Emergence Of Classical American Patent Law, Herbert Hovenkamp Aug 2015

The Emergence Of Classical American Patent Law, Herbert Hovenkamp

Herbert Hovenkamp

The Emergence of Classical Patent Law

Abstract

One enduring historical debate concerns whether the American Constitution was intended to be "classical" -- referring to a theory of statecraft that maximizes the role of private markets and minimizes the role of government in economic affairs. The most central and powerful proposition of classical constitutionalism is that the government's role in economic development should be minimal. First, private rights in property and contract exist prior to any community needs for development. Second, if a particular project is worthwhile the market itself will make it occur. Third, when the government attempts to induce ...


The Classical Constitution, Herbert Hovenkamp Feb 2015

The Classical Constitution, Herbert Hovenkamp

Herbert Hovenkamp

Conservative and libertarian constitutional writers have often pined for return to a "classical" understanding of American federal and state Constitutions. "Classical" does not necessarily mean "originalist" or "interpretivist." Some classical views, such as the attempt to revitalize Lochner-style economic due process, find little support in the text of the federal Constitution or any of the contemporary state constitutions. Rather, constitutional meaning is thought to lie in a background link between constitution formation and classical statecraft. The core theory rests on the assumption of a social contract to which everyone in some initial position agreed. Like any contract, it would ...


Patent Confusion, Jennifer L. Behrens Jan 2015

Patent Confusion, Jennifer L. Behrens

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Antitrust And The Patent System: A Reexamination, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2015

Antitrust And The Patent System: A Reexamination, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Since the federal antitrust laws were first passed they have cycled through extreme positions on the relationship between competition law and the patent system. Previous studies of antitrust and patents have generally assumed that patents are valid, discrete, and generally of high quality in the sense that they further innovation. As a result, increasing the returns to patenting increases the incentive to do socially valuable innovation. Further, if the returns to the patentee exceed the social losses caused by increased exclusion, the tradeoff is positive and antitrust should not interfere. If a patent does nothing to further innovation, however, then ...


Inventing The Classical Constitution, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2015

Inventing The Classical Constitution, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

One recurring call over a century of American constitutional thought is for return to a "classical" understanding of American federal and state Constitutions. "Classical" does not necessarily mean "originalist" or "interpretivist." Some classical views, such as the attempt to revitalize Lochner-style economic due process, find little support in the text of the federal Constitution or any of the contemporary state constitutions. Rather, constitutional meaning is thought to lie in a background link between constitution formation and classical statecraft. The core theory rests on the assumption of a social contract to which everyone in some initial position agreed. Like any contract ...


Patents And The University, Peter Lee Feb 2013

Patents And The University, Peter Lee

Peter Lee

This Article advances two novel claims about the internalization of academic science within patent law and the concomitant evolution of “academic exceptionalism.” Historically, relations between patent law and the university were characterized by mutual exclusion, based in part on normative conflicts between academia and exclusive rights. These normative distinctions informed “academic exceptionalism”—the notion that the patent system should exclude the fruits of academic science or treat academic entities differently than other actors—in patent doctrine. As universities began to embrace patents, however, academic science has become internalized within the traditional commercial narrative of patent protection. Contemporary courts frequently invoke ...


‘Sewing The Fly Buttons On The Statute:’ Employee Inventions And The Employment Context, Justine Pila Jan 2012

‘Sewing The Fly Buttons On The Statute:’ Employee Inventions And The Employment Context, Justine Pila

Justine Pila

Section 39(1) of the Patents Act 1977 governs the ownership of inventions devised by employees in the course of their employment. Introduced ‘to codify in a few lines the accumulated common law experience’ prior to 1977, it does not expressly differentiate between employment fields, and has been widely assumed to apply indiscriminately, without regard to the particular context of employment. The purpose of this article is to revisit that assumption. In the argument made, section 39(1) was built around a private sector paradigm the courts’ departure from which is supported by a ‘rational reason’ in the Shanks v ...


Intellectual Property As An ‘Investment’ In International Law: A Question Of Access To Medicines Vs Access To Justice, Christopher Wadlow Jan 2011

Intellectual Property As An ‘Investment’ In International Law: A Question Of Access To Medicines Vs Access To Justice, Christopher Wadlow

Christopher Wadlow

No abstract provided.


Antitrust And Innovation: Where We Are And Where We Should Be Going, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2011

Antitrust And Innovation: Where We Are And Where We Should Be Going, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

For large parts of their history intellectual property law and antitrust law have worked so as to undermine innovation competition by protecting too much. Antitrust policy often reflected exaggerated fears of competitive harm, and responded by developing overly protective rules that shielded inefficient businesses from competition at the expense of consumers. By the same token, the IP laws have often undermined rather than promoted innovation by granting IP holders rights far beyond what is necessary to create appropriate incentives to innovate.

Perhaps the biggest intellectual change in recent decades is that we have come to see patents less as a ...


The Great Pharmaceutical Patent Robbery, And The Curious Case Of The Chemical Foundation, Christopher Wadlow Jan 2010

The Great Pharmaceutical Patent Robbery, And The Curious Case Of The Chemical Foundation, Christopher Wadlow

Christopher Wadlow

In 1918, the United States confiscated virtually all German-owned intellectual property assets within its jurisdiction. Out of 6,000 patents in the chemical field, 4,500 were assigned for a very modest consideration to an newly-established entity, the Chemical Foundation, which was incorporated with the objective of licensing and managing them for the benefit of the United States chemical industry. This article describes the origins and activities of the Chemical Foundation, and considers whether it provides a useful model, or at least useful lessons, for the collective management of patents today.


Ip And Antitrust: Reformation And Harm, Christina Bohannan, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2010

Ip And Antitrust: Reformation And Harm, Christina Bohannan, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Antitrust and intellectual property law both seek to improve economic welfare by facilitating competition and investment in innovation. At various times both antitrust and IP law have wandered off this course and have become more driven by special interests. Today, antitrust and IP are on very different roads to reform. Antitrust reform began in the late 1970s with a series of Supreme Court decisions that linked the plaintiff’s harm and right to obtain a remedy to the competition - furthering goals of antitrust policy. Today, patent law has begun its own reform journey, but it is in a much earlier ...


The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Jan 2008

The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

This historical overview examines the relationship between antitrust policy and intellectual property in the United States since 1890. Over most of this history, judges imagined far greater conflicts between antitrust policy and intellectual property rights than actually existed, or else relied on sweeping generalizations rather than close analysis. For example, they often assumed that the presence of an intellectual property right led to anticompetitive effects where there was no basis for finding any injury to competition at all. At the other extreme, they often concluded that an intellectual property right immunized seriously anticompetitive conduct even when the intellectual property statute ...


Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents: Reevaluating The Patent "Privilege" In Historical Context, Adam Mossoff Mar 2006

Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents: Reevaluating The Patent "Privilege" In Historical Context, Adam Mossoff

ExpressO

The conventional wisdom holds that American patents have always been grants of special monopoly privileges lacking any justification in natural rights philosophy, a belief based in oft-repeated citations to Thomas Jefferson's writings on patents. Using privilege as a fulcrum in its analysis, this Article reveals that the history of early American patent law has been widely misunderstood and misused. In canvassing primary historical sources, including political and legal treatises, Founders' writings, congressional reports, and long-forgotten court decisions, it explains how patent rights were defined and enforced under the social contract doctrine and labor theory of property of natural rights ...


The British Empire Patent 1901-1923: The ‘Global’ Patent That Never Was, Christopher Wadlow Jan 2006

The British Empire Patent 1901-1923: The ‘Global’ Patent That Never Was, Christopher Wadlow

Christopher Wadlow

Reflects on the lessons which unsuccessful efforts to introduce a British Empire patent prior to 1923 may offer for the European Community patent. Reviews the origin of the proposal in 1901, the state of patent law across the Empire at the time, the progress made at several Imperial conferences, key features of the 1919 memorandum and the issues discussed at the 1922 patent conference. Outlines the reasons for the failure of the 1923 proposals, including the problems created by Canada's claim for reciprocal treatment for its patents, and considers whether the EC Community patent has a greater prospect of ...


Ip And Antitrust Policy: A Brief Historical Overview, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Dec 2005

Ip And Antitrust Policy: A Brief Historical Overview, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

The history of IP/antitrust litigation is filled with exaggerated notions of the power conferred by IP rights and imagined threats to competition. The result is that antitrust litigation involving IP practices has seen problems where none existed. To be sure, finding the right balance between maintaining competition and creating incentives to innovate is no easy task. However, the judge in an IP/antitrust case almost never needs to do the balancing, most of which is done in the language of the IP provisions. The role of antitrust tribunals is the much more limited one of ensuring that any alleged ...


Patent Arbitration: Past, Present And Future, Thomas G. Field Jr Jan 1984

Patent Arbitration: Past, Present And Future, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Most attorneys have heard of arbitration, but few have more than a vague idea of what it is or have any experience with it. Patent attorneys are no exception, and many are no doubt wondering about the implications of §294. It was enacted in August of 1982, and went into effect in February 1983: Why was it needed and passed, and what does it mean?