Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

The Case For Dhs To Classify The Internet Of Things As Critical Infrastructure In The United States, Jessica G. Martz

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gotta Catch ‘Em All! The Rise Of Esports And The Evolution Of Its Regulations, Elizabeth Chung

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulations For Smart Mobility: Proceed With Caution, Connor Saenz

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Using Interactive Inventions, W. Keith Robinson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Interactive inventions are systems and processes that can be used by multiple actors at the same time. Many interactive inventions are the product of emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things that allow billions of everyday devices to communicate with each other via the Internet. Other interactive inventions are prevalent in the emerging fields of personalized medicine and FinTech (new financial technologies). Unfortunately, the law concerning how to determine liability when a patent directed to an interactive invention is infringed is dissonant across classes of inventions. Specifically, what it means to “use” an interactive system is different from what …

Patent Reform, Then And Now, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Injunctive Relief, Norman Siebrasse, Rafal Sikorski, Jorge L. Contreras, Thomas F. Cotter, John M. Golden, Sang Jo Jong, Brian J. Love, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Patent systems commonly empower courts to order accused or adjudged infringers to refrain from continuing infringing conduct in the future. Some patentees file suit for the primary purpose of obtaining and enforcing an injunction against infringement by a competitor, and even in cases in which the patentee is willing to license an invention to an accused infringer for an agreed price, the indirect monetary value of an injunction against future infringement can dwarf the amount a finder of fact is likely to award as compensation for past infringement. In some of these cases, an injunction, if granted, would impose costs …

Intellectual Property Law, David L. Mccombs, Phillip B. Philbin, Brett Bostrom, Katharyn Zagorin

SMU Annual Texas Survey

No abstract provided.

Front Matter

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Emerging Technologies Challenging Current Legal Paradigms, W. Keith Robinson, Joshua T. Smith

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

U.S. patent law has made assumptions about where new inventions will be created, who will create them, and how they will be infringed. Throughout history, emerging technologies have challenged these paradigms. This decade’s emerging technologies will allow humans to create in virtual worlds, connect billions of every day devices via the Internet, and use artificial intelligence to invent across technology fields. If countries like the U.S. wish to encourage inventors to seek patent protection in these emerging areas, then a paradigm shift in the law must occur. Specifically, the law must clarify patent eligibility, recognize the increasing role of artificial …

Final Report Of The Berkeley Center For Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenges, Jeffrey Lefstin, Peter Menell, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Over the past five years, the Supreme Court has embarked upon a drastic and far-reaching experiment in patent eligibility standards. Since the founding era, the nation’s patent statutes have afforded patent protection to technological innovations and practical applications of scientific discoveries. However, the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories imposed a new limitation on the scope of the patent system: a useful application of a scientific discovery is ineligible for patent protection unless the inventor also claims an “inventive” application of the discovery. The following year, the Court ruled that discoveries of the location and …

Front Matter

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presuming Patent Inventorship Without Further Examination: A Double-Edged Sword For Aerospace Companies, Jake Winslett

Journal of Air Law and Commerce

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Property Law, David L. Mccombs, Phillip B. Philbin, Jamie Raju, Catherine Reynolds

SMU Annual Texas Survey

No abstract provided.

Monitoring Behavior: Universities, Nonprofits, Patents, And Litigation, Teo Firpo, Michael S. Mireles

SMU Law Review

This paper examines the confluence of two important issues concerning patent law. The two issues are the merits of the debate concerning the supposed “patent troll” crisis and the increased patenting and licensing of university and other nonprofit inventions, including the litigation of those patents.

First, there is a debate in the literature concerning the presence and scope of the problem concerning so-called “patent trolls.” To some, supposed “patent troll” behavior is ordinary litigation behavior, and to others, it points to problems with the patent litigation system. Indeed, some may argue that the benefits of “patent trolls” may outweigh the …

Lost Esi Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Jeffrey A. Parness

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

In 2006, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e) came into effect, declaring that lost electronically stored information (ESI) could not prompt “sanctions … on a party” absent “exceptional circumstances.” Sanctions were limited to where the loss resulted from “the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” Effective December 1, 2015, Rule 37(e) now contemplates limited “measures … to cure the prejudice” caused by lost and irreplaceable ESI arising from a party’s failure “to take reasonable steps to preserve,” where the lost ESI “should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation.” For more culpable conduct, the …

Is Your Roommate A Felon? Considering The Effect Of Criminalizing Password Sharing In Nosal Ii, London Ryynanen England

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vmg Salsoul, L.L.C. V. Ciccone: The Ninth Circuit Strikes A Pose, Applying The De Minimis Exception To Music Sampling, Jacob Quinn

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Xuan-Thao Nguyen

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Thinking About The Trans-Pacific Partnership (And A Mega-Regional Agreement On Life Support), Peter K. Yu

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trademark Boundaries: The Geography Of Non-Conventional Marks, Constance R. Lindman

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ip Enforcement Under The Tpp: Civil And Administrative Procedures And Remedies, Provisional Measures In Tpp (Articles 18.71–18.76), J. Janewa Osei-Tutu

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Sanctions And The Tpp: Section 18.77, Shawn Marie Boyne

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Tpp To University: Transforming Technology Transfer, Hamid Piroozi

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond Tpp: Legal Reform For Financing Intellectual Property And Innovation In Vietnam, Xuan-Thao Nguyen

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward A Knowledge-Based Economy: Tpp And Thailand’S Experience And Concerns, Apinya Bunditwuthisagul

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Copyright Ownership—Even Iron Man Couldn’T Protect The Work For Hire Doctrine From Third-Party Infringers, Elizabeth Vinson

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Privacy, Probability, And Political Pitfalls Of Universal Dna Collection, Meghan J. Ryan

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) in 1953 launched a truth-finding mission not only in science but also in the law. Just thirty years later–after the science had evolved–DNA evidence was being introduced in criminal courts. Today, DNA evidence is heavily relied on in criminal and related cases. It is routinely introduced in murder and rape cases as evidence of guilt; DNA databases have grown as even arrestees have been required to surrender DNA samples; and this evidence has been used to exonerate hundreds of convicted individuals. DNA evidence is generally revered as the “gold …

Front Matter

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patents, Industrial Designs, And The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Articles 18.37–18.46 And 18.55–18.56, David O. Taylor, Aaron Pirouznia

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

This essay summarizes the articles of the Trans-Pacific Partnership dealing with patents and industrial designs, and compares and contrasts those articles with U.S. law and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The Wisdom Of Universal Dna Collection: A Reply To Professor Meghan J. Ryan, Arnold Loewy

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.