Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

The Missing Link: Making Research Easier With Linked Citations, Nick Harrell

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Corporate Preference For Trade Secret, Andrew A. Schwartz

Publications

Many inventions can be legally protected either by patent or by trade secrecy, and a conventional wisdom exists on how to select between them. This Article adds to that literature by showing that corporations should have an inherent preference for trade secret over patent for reasons relating to their legal form. Among them is the idea that corporations are perpetual entities and therefore perfectly suited to reap the perpetual returns that only a trade secret can offer. The Article also addresses the potential for a conflict between the inherent corporate preference for trade secret and the preferences of corporate managers, …

Ethical Implications Of Intellectual Property In Africa, Dick Kawooya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Patent Applications And The Performance Of The U.S. Patent And Trademark Office, Christopher A. Cotropia

Law Faculty Publications

This Article reports data and analyses to facilitate answering these questions. The reported data was obtained from two sources. The first is the Workload Tables from the USPTO annual reports, called the "USPTO Performance and Accountability Reports," provided to the President, Congress, and public.' The second is data received from the USPTO in response to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests.3 From these two data sources, information such as the number of applications filed per year, the type of applications being filed and prosecuted, the pendency of these applications, and their disposition, including the number of them issued as patents, …

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 …

How Hard-Fought Is Copyright Litigation?, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

As I mentioned in my last essay, my colleague Chris Cotropia and I have recently completed a data collection project in which we examined pleadings from approximately 1,000 copyright cases filed in federal court over a four-year period. We are still evaluating the data, but our preliminary findings indicate that copyright litigation differs from other federal civil litigation; it takes longer and appears to be contested more – yet ends up in much the same place.

A little background first. During the period we studied (2005-2008), the cases fell into three broad categories. The first comprised those cases in which …

Finally, An Answer On Copyright, First Sale, And The Gray Market, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

In two past entries in this series, here and here, I discussed whether copyrighted goods manufactured abroad may be resold in the United States without having to get a new license from the copyright owner. When the goods are pirated – manufactured illegally – the answer is clearly no; that’s a classic black-market sale. But when the goods were manufactured abroad with the copyright owner’s consent, well, that’s different. In that case, the resale is what we call a gray-market sale. And there, the answer is less clear.

Or at least it was. But at long last, and after one …

The Top Three Copyright Cases Of 2012, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

In my last entry in this series, I examined three important patent law cases from 2012 – one at the Supreme Court level, one at the appellate level, and one at the trial court level. I’ll now do the same thing with regard to copyright cases.

My Supreme Court choice is Golan v. Holder, in which the Court upheld a statute that restored U.S. copyright protection to certain foreign works, thus removing them from the public domain. Such works had lost their protection – or had never acquired it in the first place – because of their failure to comply …

Information May Want To Be Free, But Information Products Do Not: Protecting & Facilitating Transactions In Information Products (Reprint), Kristen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

Information products-products that are used to organize, provide context, and distribute information-have gone largely unprotected by intellectual property regimes. As a result, producers of information products, such as databases and software, have resorted to alternative mechanisms to protect their investments. These mechanisms have resulted in both over-protection and under-protection ofthe information products. Further, the uncertainty in the boundaries of coverage, coupled with the resort to self-help mechanisms, may well inhibit, rather than facilitate, information flow. What is needed is a sui generis protection scheme for information products that clearly defines the boundaries and protection requirements for these works and that …

Resale Royalties For Visual Artists: The United States Taking Cues From Europe, Toni Mione

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note argues that visual artists in the U.S. are economically disadvantaged compared to authors and composers under U.S. copyright law, as their works do not generate royalties through reproduction. It advocates for federal resale rights legislation to align U.S. policy with international standards, particularly the EU Resale Right Directive, and address the disparity in artists' economic rights.

Make Me Walk, Make Me Talk, Do Whatever You Please: Barbie And Exceptions, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Barbie represents an aspiration to an ideal and also a never-ending mutability. Barbie is the perfect woman, and she is also grotesque, plasticized hyperreality, presenting a femininity exaggerated to the point of caricature. Barbie’s marketplace success, combined with (and likely related to) her overlapping and contradictory meanings, also allow her to embody some key exceptions to copyright and trademark law. Though Mattel’s lawsuits were not responsible for the initial recognition of those exceptions, they illuminate key principles and contrasts in American law. Mattel attempted to use both copyright and trademark to control the meaning of Barbie, reflecting a trend towards …

Error Costs & Ip Law, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

A court in doubt about an ip statute’s scope can err in two ways. It can wrongly narrow the ip right’s reach, or wrongly broaden it. The latter error, however, is worse: A wrongly broadened ip statute effectively creates new property. To correct erroneous broadening, unlike erroneous narrowing, the legislature must thus eliminate a now-established property right. And that is very hard to do. Courts cannot, of course, avoid making at least some mistakes. Courts can, however, prefer the mistakes that are easier, not harder, for the legislature to correct. This essay explores this error-cost-based approach to ip statutes, as …

A Numerus Clausus Principle For Intellectual Property, Christina Mulligan

Scholarly Works

Real property can only be held and conveyed in a small number of forms, such as fee simple, life estate, and lease. This principle is known as numerus clausus, meaning “the number is closed.” For centuries, the principle has been central to the common-law system of property rights. Scholars have justified it as a mechanism for facilitating effective property alienation, maintaining low transaction costs in the buying and selling of property, and keeping the scope of property owners’ rights clear.

In contrast, the numerus clausus principle is essentially nonexistent in intellectual property law. In the context of patents and copyrights, …

Dissemination Must Serve Authors: How The U.S. Supreme Court Erred, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

The US Congress has enacted expansions of copyright which arguably impose high social costs and generate little incentives for authorial creativity. When the two most expansive statutes were challenged as unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court rebuffed the challenges, partly on the supposed ground that copyright law could legitimately seek to promote nonauthorial interests; apparently, Congress could enact provisions aiming to support noncreative disseminative activities such as publishing, or restoring and distributing old film stock, even if authorial incentives were not served. Such an error might have arisen because of three phenomena (in economics, history, and law, respectively) that might easily …

Ip Injury And The Institutions Of Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

This paper reviews Creation Without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, the pathbreaking book by Christina Bohannan and Herbert Hovenkamp (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). The Review begins by summarizing the book’s descriptive insights and analyzing one of its important normative proposals: the adoption of an IP injury requirement. This requirement would demand that infringement plaintiffs prove -- before obtaining damages or an injunction -- an injury to the incentive to innovate. After explaining how this requirement is easy to justify under governing law and is largely consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions in the field of patent law, the …

The Paradox Of Legal Equivalents And Scientific Equivalence: Reconciling Patent Law's Doctrine Of Equivalents With The Fda's Bioequivalence Requirement, Janet Freilich

Faculty Scholarship

Contrary to popular perception, generic drugs often enter the market before the patents covering their brand name counterparts have expired by making slight changes to the drug to avoid the brand name patent. These generics face a paradox: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that the generic "not show a significant difference" from the reference product, while patent law requires that the generic have "substantial differences" as compared to the reference product. The generic must be bioequivalent, but not legally equivalent, to the brand name drug. This paradox occurs frequently in the courts but has never been discussed …