Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Holding Up And Holding Out, Colleen V. Chien

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Patent “hold-up” and patent “hold-out” present important, alternative theories for what ails the patent system. Patent “hold-up” occurs when a patent owner sues a company when it is most vulnerable—after it has implemented a technology—and is able wrest a settlement because it is too late for the company to change course. Patent “hold-out” is the practice of companies routinely ignoring patents and resisting patent owner demands because the odds of getting caught are small. Hold-up has arguably predicted the current patent crises, and the ex ante assertion of technology patents whether in the smartphone war, standards, or patent “troll” context. …

Standard Essential Patents, Trolls, And The Smartphone Wars: Triangulating The End Game, 119 Penn St. L. Rev. 1 (2014), Daryl Lim

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

Few legal issues in recent years have captured the public's attention more powerfully than litigation over standard essential patents (“SEPs”). This Article explains how SEP litigation overlaps with two other major centers of patent litigation--litigation involving smartphones and patent assertion entities (“PAEs”). It observes that attempting to pre-empt patent hold-ups by imposing blanket ex ante disclosure obligations and royalty caps on standard setting organizations (“SSOs”) is misdirected and counterproductive. Instead, the solution lies in clear and balanced rules to determine “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) royalties and injunctive relief. This solution will help parties make more realistic assessments of their …

Machine Learning And Law, Harry Surden

Publications

This Article explores the application of machine learning techniques within the practice of law. Broadly speaking “machine learning” refers to computer algorithms that have the ability to “learn” or improve in performance over time on some task. In general, machine learning algorithms are designed to detect patterns in data and then apply these patterns going forward to new data in order to automate particular tasks. Outside of law, machine learning techniques have been successfully applied to automate tasks that were once thought to necessitate human intelligence — for example language translation, fraud-detection, driving automobiles, facial recognition, and data-mining. If performing …

Preliminary Injunctions Post-Mayo And Myriad, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

The Supreme Court's recent interest in patentable subject matter has had several, unexpected downstream effects on preliminary injunctions in patent disputes.

The Supreme Court has recently expressed increased interest in patent eligibility, or patentable subject matter, the doctrine that limits the types of inventions eligible for patenting. Its two decisions, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., in 2012, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., in 2013, represented the first broad restrictions on patentable subject matter in over thirty years. And later this term, the Court will decide yet another patent eligibility case: Alice Corp. v. CLS …

Learning To Litigate: University Patents In The Knowledge Economy, Jacob H. Rooksby

Law Faculty Publications

Over the nearly two de cades since the publication of Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University (Slaughter and Leslie 1997), the model of academic capitalism has become one of the more widely cited conceptual frameworks in the global literature on higher education. Works in the academic capitalist canon have relied on the two basic understandings of the theory of academic capitalism and the new economy, as articulated by Slaughter and Leslie (1997), Slaughter and Rhoades (2004), and Rhoades and Slaughter (2006). Rhoades and Slaughter (2006) summarize these two conceptual strands as “the increasing engagement of higher education institutions …

Confusion Isn't Everything, William Mcgeveran, Mark P. Mckenna

Notre Dame Law Review

The typical shorthand justification for trademark rights centers on avoiding consumer confusion. But in truth, this encapsulation mistakes a method for a purpose: confusion merely serves as an indicator of the underlying problems that trademark law seeks to prevent. Other areas of law accept confusion or mistake of all kinds, intervening only when those errors lead to more serious harms. Likewise, every theory of trademark rights considers confusion troubling solely because it threatens more fundamental values such as fair competition or informative communication. In other words, when it comes to the deep purposes of trademark law, confusion isn’t everything.

Yet …

The Expansion Of Trademark Rights In Europe, Irina Pak

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

The Granting Clause And Intellectual Property Rights Management In Open-Source Software Licensing, Vikrant N. Vasudeva

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Explaining The Supreme Court's Interest In Patent Law, Timothy R. Holbrook

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Rohauer Revisited: "Rear Window," Copyright Reversions, Renewals, Terminations, Derivative Works And Fair Use , Richard Colby

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patenting Nature: A Problem Of History, Christopher Beauchamp

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Joinder Under The Aia: Shifting Non-Practicing Entity Patent Assertions Away From Small Businesses, Xun Liu

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

When the America Invents Act ("AIA ") was signed in September 2011, many feared the law might benefit larger corporations at the expense of small businesses. This Note examines how one portion of the AIA, governing joinder in patent cases, might actually benefit small businesses by reducing patent assertions from non-practicing entities ("NPEs"). NPE assertions disproportionately affect small businesses, both because NPEs target small businesses more frequently and because patent assertions have a greater impact on individual companies. Prior to the AIA, joining multiple defendants in a single lawsuit offered important advantages for patent holders and allowed NPEs to achieve …

“Reverse” Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions: A Proposed Solution For Medtronic, Megan M. La Belle

Scholarly Articles

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. – the first patent case of the term – on November 5, 2013. The issue in Medtronic is whether the burden of proof in patent declaratory judgment actions should be on the patent owner to prove infringement or on the accused infringer to prove non-infringement. Ordinarily, the patent owner bears the burden of proving infringement and the declaratory posture of a suit does not shift that burden. In Medtronic, however, the Federal Circuit created an exception for “MedImmune-type” suits, meaning declaratory judgment actions …

#Bewareofovershare: Social Media Discovery And Importance In Intellectual Property Litigation, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 449 (2013), Jennifer K. Gregory

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

As the use of social media continues to expand, lawyers will increasingly rely on evidence gleaned from social media sources. This is already true in several areas of litigation, including various types of intellectual property litigation. Thus far, the rules of civil procedure, evidence, and professional conduct have addressed many of the issues that arise regarding the acquisition and use of social media evidence. Lawyers should at least investigate social media usage by key parties in each particular case in order to be aware of what social media evidence could be available. Lawyers are also responsible for having a basic …

Should There Be A Presumption Favoring Awards Of Attorney’S Fees In Copyright Litigation?, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 630 (2013), William T. Mcgrath

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Section 505 of the Copyright Act allows courts to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a copyright case. Almost twenty years ago, the Supreme Court in Fogerty resolved a split among the circuits over the interpretation of that statute. First, it held that courts should apply several nonexclusive factors when determining if the prevailing party, whether defendant or plaintiff, should be entitled to recover attorney’s fees. Second, the Court refused to apply a presumption that the prevailing party will automatically recover attorney’s fees, opting instead for the districts courts to apply “equitable discretion” in awarding fees. But in …

The Patent Litigation Explosion, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer

Faculty Scholarship

This Article provides the first look at patent litigation hazards for public firms during the 1980s and 1990s. Litigation is more likely when prospective plaintiffs acquire more patents, when firms are larger and technologically close and when prospective defendants spend more on research and development ("R&D"). The latter suggests inadvertent infringement may be more important than piracy. Public firms face dramatically increased hazards of litigation as plaintiffs and even more rapidly increasing hazards as defendants, especially for small public firms. The increase cannot be explained by patenting rates, R&D, firm value or industry composition. Legal changes are the most likely …

Certain Patents, Alan C. Marco, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents the first in a series of studies of stock market reactions to the legal outcomes of patent cases. From a sample of patents litigated during a 20-year period, we estimate market reactions to patent litigation decisions and to patent grants. These estimates reveal that the resolution of legal uncertainty over patent validity and patent infringement is, on average, worth as much to a firm as is the initial grant of the patent right. Each is worth about 1.0-1.5% excess returns on investment. There are significant differences between such market reactions before and after the establishment in 1982 …

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Innovation And Litigation: Tensions Between Universities And Patents And How To Fix Them, Jacob H. Rooksby

Law Faculty Publications

Universities that own patents have a problem. While nearly all are keen to enhance their revenue generated from patents, few are eager or prepared to enforce them in court, alone or with their exclusive licensees, should a third party deploy a product or process covered by a university-owned patent. Yet strict prudential standing requirements imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) effectively require university participation as plaintiffs in enforcement lawsuits over their exclusively licensed patents, regardless of a university’s effective ability or enthusiasm to participate in a given action. Supported by forty years of …

Musical Copyright Infringement: The Replacement Of Arnstein V. Porter - A More Comprehensive Use Of Expert Testimony And The Implementation Of An "Actual Audience" Test , Michelle V. Francis

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Publicity After Death: Postmortem Personality Rights In The Wake Of Experiencehendrix V. Hendrixlicensing.Com, Aubrie Hicks

Seattle University Law Review

While the states are fairly consistent in protecting the rights of living individuals, the level of protection for deceased celebrities varies among the states. Some states allow the right to extend beyond death, while others refuse to recognize a postmortem right of publicity. Even among states that do recognize a postmortem right of publicity, the right is protected to varying degrees, with some states providing explicit statutory protections and others providing only common law protections. Given the inconsistencies among the states, the continuing right to publicity after death has been the subject of much litigation over the last few years, …

The Relational Contingency Of Rights, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Let's Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, And Judicial Philosophy At The Federal Circuit, Andrew T. Langford

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit, Blake R. Hartz

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

The Private Costs Of Patent Litigation, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer

Faculty Scholarship

This paper estimates the total cost of patent litigation to alleged infringers. We use a large sample of stock market event studies around the date of lawsuit filings for US public firms from 1984-99. We find that the total costs of litigation are much greater than legal fees and costs are large even for lawsuits that settle. Lawsuits cost alleged infringers about $28.7 million ($92) in the mean and $2.9 million in the median. Moreover, infringement risk rose sharply during the late 1990s to over 14% of R&D spending. Small firms have lower risk relative to R&D.

Keep Your Program Out Of My Game: The Ninth Circuit’S Convoluted Copyright Analysis In Mdy Industries, Inc. V. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc, Brandon T. Crowther

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels And The Webcasting Controversy: The Antithesis Of Good Alternative Dispute Resolution, Jeremy Delibero

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Music is becoming increasingly synonymous with big business and corporate influence. The advent of Internet radio and streaming webcasts are simply one example of this shift. Organizations such as the Radio Industry Association of America ("RIAA") have discovered a new way to receive royalties from the performance of musical works, and have fought vigorously to obtain favorable rates to achieve the maximum profit. On the other hand, small webcasters have fought equally hard to avoid these large rates. Although arguments for each side are equally persuasive, neither is persuasive enough to force a compromise. In attempting to solve these disputes, …

The Institutional Role In Arbitrating Patent Disputes, Murray Lee Eiland

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This paper will address, in particular, the nature of an international patent dispute and how the rules of the main arbitral institutions influence the unfolding arbitration. The main issue considered here is if institutional rules address the particular needs of patent disputes. Arbitral institutions are prepared to resolve many kinds of disputes, but because they operate under different rules, some may be more or less prepared for the special nature of IP. Patent related disputes are even more specialized. Even small differences in institutional rules can have a large impact upon the unfolding arbitration. After a brief consideration of arbitrability, …

Copyright And The Vagueness Doctrine, Bradley E. Abruzzi

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Constitution's void-for-vagueness doctrine is itself vaguely stated. The doctrine does little to describe at what point vague laws-other than those that are entirely standardless-become unconstitutionally vague. Rather than explore this territory, the Supreme Court has identified three collateral factors that affect its inclination to invalidate a law for vagueness: (1) whether the law burdens the exercise of constitutional rights, (2) whether the law is punitive in nature, and (3) whether the law overlays a defendant-protective scienter requirement. Measured against these factors, copyright law does not meet the vagueness doctrine's minimum requirement of fair notice to the public. Copyright, by …

Patent Law As Public Law, Megan M. La Belle

Scholarly Articles

Historically, patent litigation has been viewed and treated primarily as private law litigation, as opposed to public law litigation. This paradigm has begun to shift, however, as various stakeholders have come to acknowledge the profound impact that the patent system – and particularly invalid patents – have on the public at large. Yet, in order for a public law regime to succeed, there must be a host of enforcement mechanisms available, including the opportunity for privately-initiated litigation.

Public interest organizations have played a prominent role in the enforcement of certain public rights, such as free speech, equal protection, and environmental …