Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

The Inventor's Contribution, Robin Feldman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Towards A Continuum Of Scholarship: The Eventual Collapse Of The Distinction Between Grey And Non-Grey Literature, Marcus A. Banks

Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.

Abstract (from University of Arizona Campus Repository)

This paper argues that the distinction between grey and non-grey (or white) literature will become less relevant over time, as online discovery options proliferate. In the meantime, the political success of the open access publishing movement has valuable lessons for proponents of increasing access to grey literature.

On The Causes Of Unpredictability Of Federal Circuit Decisions In Patent Cases, Paul M. Janicke

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Trademarks Or Copyrights: Which Intellectual Property Right Affords Its Owner The Greatest Protection Of Architectural Ingenuity?, Rashida Y.V. Macmurray

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The End Of Federalism In Telecommunication Regulations?, Douglas C. Sicker

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Property And Genetically Modified Seeds: The United States, Trade, And The Developing World, Haley Stein

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Defining The Limits Of The Eu Essential Facilities Doctrine On Intellectual Property Rights: The Primacy Of Securing Optimal Innovation, James Turney

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Ambush Marketing: The Off-Field Competition At The Olympic Games, Jason K. Schmitz

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

High Plains Drifting: Wind-Blown Seeds And The Intellectual Property Implications Of The Gmo Revolution, Stephanie M. Bernhardt

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Free Radicals In Cyberspace: Complex Liability Issues In Information Warfare, Meiring De Villiers

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Analysis Of The Impact Of Experimental Use Exemptions In Patent Law On Incentives To Innovate, Kevin Iles

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

In-Line Or Insane? The Federal Circuit's Recent Interpretation Of Festo In Honeywell V. Hamilton Sundstrand, Justin E. Gray

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Preserving Internet Expression While Protecting Our Children: Solutions Following Ashcroft V. Aclu, Steven E. Merlis

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Zippo Is Dying, Should It Be Dead?: The Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction By U.S. Federal Courts Over Non-Domiciliary Defendants In Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Arising Out Of Cyberspace, Bunmi Awoyemi

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Personal jurisdiction and the Internet has troubled the courts from the first. The analysis the court offered in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, Inc. on its face appeared helpful for dealing with personal jurisdictional issues by the use of a "sliding scale": "[T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet." putting aside the failure of many courts to restrict Zippo to its facts, The author argues that the Zippo court's analysis of specific personal jurisdiction in the Internet or …

Comment: Copyright's Public-Private Distinction, Julie E. Cohen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I would like to focus my remarks on the question of user privacy. In her fascinating paper for this Symposium, Professor Litman expresses a guarded optimism that in its forthcoming decision in MGM v. Grokster, I the Court will retain the staple article of commerce doctrine that it first articulated in Sony. She opines, however, that the user privacy strand of the Sony decision is a lost cause. I don't believe that it's possible to retain the staple article of commerce doctrine while abandoning user privacy. At least in the realm of networked digital technologies, the two concepts are inextricably …

Laugh Track, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court may have its own police force, its own museum curator, and even its own basketball court, but unlike the courts of yore it has no Jester. As a result, the responsibility of delivering humor within the hallowed halls of One First Street falls squarely on the backs of the nine Justices themselves. But which Justice provides the best comic entertainment for the court watchers, lawyers, and staff that make up the Court’s audience on any given argument day? Surely many believe that Justice Scalia, with his acerbic wit and quick tongue, has provided the most laughs from …

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005), Marybeth Peters

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Honorable Marybeth Peters, who has served since 1994 as the Register of Copyrights for the United States Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, presented a post-election report on the legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. regarding rejected, pending and future amendments to the copyright law of the United States. Register Peters also discussed the current policy role of the United States Copyright Office and several court actions that contest the constitutionality of various provisions of the copyright law.

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Technology Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 242 (2005), Michael A. Geist, Doris E. Long, Leslie Ann Reis, David E. Sorkin, Fred Von Lohmann

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

How is new technology impacting on the more general question of privacy in cyberspace? Is the original notion of an expectation of anonymity on the internet still viable? Can technology pierce through the expectation of privacy even without judicial interference? Do individuals need protection from such technology? Is there technology available to protect the individual? Should these technological tools be regulated? Should the law differentiate between various types of alleged “illegal” behavior; e.g., IP infringement, defamation, possession of pornography and terrorism? Are there international standards that can assist in regulating the intersection between technology and privacy in cyberspace?

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Political Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 306 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Hugh C. Hansen, Christopher Jay Hoofnagle, Howard P. Knopf, Declan Mccullagh, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Veteran beltway players discuss the politics of P2P technology and Privacy. How far can or should Congress go? Can the United States export its values or its laws in this area? Are content owners in a losing Luddite struggle? What is the role of litigators, lobbyists and legislators in this war?

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Privacy Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 273 (2005), Julie E. Cohen, David E. Sorkin, Peter P. Swire

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

What legal tools do privacy advocates have available to defend an individual’s right to privacy? How far does this right go? How should these rights be defended—or if necessary—curtailed? What is the role of Government, of the practicing bar and of academics?

Copyright & Privacy - Through The Wide-Angle Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 285 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Howard P. Knopf, Fred Von Lohmann, William B.T. Mock, Marybeth Peters, R. Anthony Reese

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Some have proposed “alternative compensation schemes” as a means of compensating copyright owners and creators for P2P activity while avoiding litigation. Some have proposed a streamlined dispute resolution system that would allow for enforcement in a manner analogous to the UDRP model. Others question whether private copying should necessarily be viewed as illegal and whether any alternative compensation scheme is viable. With all of these proposals, the question remains as to whether “alternative compensation” is really alternative.

Transaction Costs And Antitrust Concerns In The Licensing Of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005), Richard A. Posner

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

High transaction costs incurred in the licensing of intellectual property create a pressure on legal principles ranging from the fair use doctrine of copyright law to the tying doctrine in antitrust law. It appears, with some exceptions, that antitrust law is imposing excessive restrictions on the licensing of intellectual property. The effect of these restrictions, combined with the high transaction costs inherent in the licensing of intellectual property, is to prevent the maximally efficient allocation of IP resources.

Recent Developments In Trademark Law: Confusion, Free Speech And The Question Of Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 387 (2005), Chad J. Doellinger

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Supreme Court’s continued trend of refining trademark rights combined with a new concern for free speech and expression brings current and unresolved trademark issues to light. The large amount of activity in the development of trademark law in 2004 has brought additional uncertainty to trademark law. This article discusses recent Supreme Court trademark jurisprudence refining trademark rights, the development of recent trademark dilution cases, the role of use in commerce as applied to internet search engines and keyword issues, and the emphasis on free speech and expression.

Intellectual Property Implications In A Virtual Reality Environment, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 483 (2005), Timir Chheda

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

What will become of intellectual property interests in a world where virtual reality is a fact of life? To ponder this question we must step back from the sophisticated judicially created tests built around a framework of policy suited for modern reality and first consider whether such policy is viable given a virtual reality environment. Only then may we consider if the tests appropriately further such policy, and if not, modify the tests accordingly. This comment considers the policy and tests implicated when copyright, trademark, and patent law pass through the looking-glass and enter the realm of virtual reality.

Placing The Burden Back Where It Belongs: A Proposal To Eliminate The Affirmative Duty From Willful Infringement Analyses, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 509 (2005), Kevin J. Kelly

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

In order to further the objective of the patent system and maximize the public’s incentive to innovate, it is imperative that the patent laws maintain a balance between the interests of patent owners in excluding others from their patents and the interests of society in the continual progress of technology. The current law in willful infringement analysis upsets this balance with the affirmative duty of due care, which shifts the burden of proof in patent infringement suits from the plaintiff to the alleged infringer. The affirmative duty places a heavy burden on the public and is inconsistent with various common …

University Of Rochester V. G.D. Searle & Co.: Writing On The Wall, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 406 (2005), N. Scott Pierce

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

In patent law, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is currently interpreted to include a written description requirement that is distinct from the requirement of enabling a person skilled in the art to make and use an invention. However, analyses of patent specifications under the “written description requirement” have relied on determinations of whether one skilled in the art would comprehend the scope of the claimed invention in view of the description provided, in effect continuing use of enablement as the statutory threshold for description purposes. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in University of Rochester …

Congress Wants To Give The Riaa Control Of Your Ipod: How The Induce Act Chills Innovation And Abrogates Sony, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 534 (2005), Michael Raucci

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The addition of “active inducement” to the Copyright Act would compliment the doctrine of contributory liability by punishing those who actively encourage copyright infringement. Actively inducing infringement can include advertising an infringing use or other affirmative acts. Therefore, active inducement provides a technology-neutral standard that would not look to punish bad technology but rather bad actions by the technology distributor. In contrast, the reasonable person standard of the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004 (“Induce Act”) permits an inappropriate extension of the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by lowering the threshold for litigation. Consequently, the Induce Act improperly …

"As The Federal Circuit Turns": The Supreme Court's Consideration Of Merck V. Integra And The Safe Harbor Provision, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 368 (2005), Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Hatch-Waxman Act was enacted to balance the competing interests in the pharmaceutical marketplace between brand name and generic drug manufacturers. In the twenty years since its inception, the safe harbor provision contained in § 271(e)(1), has been interpreted to provide broad protection to those involved in research activities. However, in 2003, the Federal Circuit narrowly interpreted the safe harbor provision in a move that could potentially frustrate future research and improvements on patented technologies. Merck v. Integra is currently before the United States Supreme Court, who has the challenge of unraveling the competing interests involved. In order to encourage …

Abuse Of Public Use? Exploring The Smithkline V. Apotex Decision And The Future Of Public Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 559 (2005), Artem N. Sokolov

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotx Corp., the court incorrectly applied the statutory public use bar and held the clinical trials did not constitute an experimental use. This ruling set the bar too high. Applying a narrow construction of the law, the CAFC invalidated a claim in a clear case of experimental use. The decision not only misapplied the precedent defining an “inherent” feature of the invention, but also essentially eliminated the need for applying the policies that underlie and define the public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Is The Federal Circuit Ready To Accept Plenary Authority For Patent Appeals?, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2005), Meredith Martin Addy

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Congress formed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 in part to improve uniformity in the interpretation of patent law and to eliminate forum shopping. However, in 2002, the Federal Circuit’s ability to achieve that goal was reduced when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Holmes Group v. Vornado, held that the Federal Circuit would not have jurisdiction in cases where a federal patent law issue arises only in a responsive pleading. Many commentators have argued that the Holmes decision runs afoul of the congressional mandate in forming the Federal Circuit. With the hope of addressing this …