Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Patent Submission Policies, Ryan T. Holte

Akron Law Review

This Article focuses on the early stage of commercialization communication when a third-party inventor owns an invention protected by a patent that a manufacturer-commercializer may profit from producing—long before any allegation of infringement or litigation. These submission-review communications by unaffiliated third parties are covered by corporate policies known as “patent submission policies.” They are the figurative “front doors” to a company for any third-party inventor, crucial to the commercialization of inventions generally. Unfortunately, patent submission policies have thus far remained unstudied in legal academic scholarship.

This Article collects and analyzes the current variations of patent submission policies adopted by the …

The Patently Unexceptional Venue Statute, Paul Gugliuzza, Megan M. La Belle

Faculty Scholarship

Legal doctrines developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are often derided as “exceptionalist,” particularly on issues of procedure. The court’s interpretation of the venue statute for patent infringement suits seems, at first glance, to fit that mold. According to the Federal Circuit, the statute places few constraints on the plaintiff’s choice of forum when suing corporate defendants. This permissive venue rule has lead critics to suggest that the court is, once again, outside the mainstream. The Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods would seem to indicate that those critics …

Seeing’S Insight: Toward A Visual Substantial Similarity Test For Copyright Infringement Of Pictorial, Graphic, And Sculptural Works, Moon Hee Lee

Northwestern University Law Review

Before imposing liability for copyright infringement, a court analyzes whether the defendant’s allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the copyright-holder plaintiff’s allegedly infringed work. This substantial similarity analysis broadly contains two steps. First, facts and ideas do not receive copyright protection and are filtered out. Second, the two works are compared to see if there is material overlap between the two works’ remaining creative expression—i.e., whether or not the two works are substantially similar. This two-step approach furthers the delicate dual goal of copyright law to keep ideas and facts freely available as raw material for creation while awarding …

Trending @ Rwu Law: Professor Niki Kuckes's Post: 'Disparaging' Trademarks Meet The First Amendment 02-07-2017, Niki Kuckes

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Damages For Partial Product Design Patent Infringement, Patryk Oskar Rogowski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keinitz V. Sconnie Nation, Llc: The Seventh Circuit's Necessary Resistance To Defining The Fair Use Doctrine Solely In Terms Of Transformativeness, Alexander Perwich

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Under the fair use doctrine, use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement on a copyright if, after consideration of four factors, a court considers the use to be fair. The four factors courts are required to consider are: (1) “the purpose and character of the use;” (2) “the nature of the copyrighted work;” (3) “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;” and (4) the effect the use has on “the potential market for or value of the original copyrighted work.” A circuit split exists between the Second and …

A Transactional Theory Of The Reader In Copyright Law, Zahr K. Said

Articles

Copyright doctrine requires judges and juries to engage in some form of experiencing or “reading” artistic works to determine whether these works have been infringed. Despite the central role that this reading—or viewing, or listening—plays in copyright disputes, copyright law lacks a robust theory of reading, and of the proper role for the “reader.” Reading matters in copyright cases, first, because many courts rely on the “ordinary observer” standard to determine infringement, which requires figuring out or assuming how an ordinary observer would read the works at issue. Second, most courts characterize a key part of infringement analysis as a …

Implications Of A Revitalized 28 U.S.C. 1400(B): Identifying The Regular And Established Place Of Business For Patent Venue In The Internet Age, Steven Pepe, Samuel Brenner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Fair Use Actually Fair In The Digital Age For Good-Faith Creators: A Call For A Broader Interpretation Of The Fair Use Doctrine In The Digital Age, Joseph Tromba

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Internet Safe Harbors And The Transformation Of Copyright Law, Matthew Sag

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article explores the potential displacement of substantive copyright law in the increasingly important online environment. In 1998, Congress enacted a system of intermediary safe harbors as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The internet safe harbors and the associated system of notice-and-takedown fundamentally changed the incentives of platforms, users, and rightsholders in relation to claims of copyright infringement. These different incentives interact to yield a functional balance of copyright online that diverges markedly from the experience of copyright law in traditional media environments. More recently, private agreements between rightsholders and large commercial internet platforms have been made …

Trademarks: German Manufacturer’S Deliberate Infringement Of Domestic Trademark Sufficient To Support Injunctive Relief, But Not Supportive Of Award For Damages, Kimley R. Johnson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Contents

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Patent Disclosures And Time, Timothy R. Holbrook

Vanderbilt Law Review

Patents by their very nature are pregnant with considerations of time. The exclusive rights they afford only last for a finite period- generally from issuance until twenty years from the filing date of the application. Moreover, since patents necessarily engage with the evolution of technology, patents reflect various "snap shots" in time that reflect the state of the art at a particular moment. Patent law must constantly wrestle with time. Many of these topics have been explored extensively in both judicial decisions and the literature. The most obvious example of considering the temporal aspect of patent law is ... obviousness. …

Resolving The Divided Patent Infringement Dilemma, Nathanial Grow

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article considers cases of divided patent infringement: those in which two or more parties collectively perform all the steps of a patented claim, but where no single party acting alone has completed the entire patented invention. Despite the increasing frequency with which such cases appear to be arising, courts have struggled to equitably resolve these lawsuits under the constraints of the existing statutory framework because of the competing policy concerns they present. On the one hand, any standard that holds two or more parties strictly liable whenever their combined actions infringe a patent risks imposing liability on countless seemingly …

State Regulation Of Keyword Advertising: A Lesson From The Utah Legislature, Mary Candice Barrett

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

What's The Harm Of Trademark Infringement?, Rebecca Tushnet

Akron Law Review

Abstract

Over the course of the twentieth century, judges came to accept trademark owners’ arguments that any kind of consumer confusion over their relationship to some other producer caused them actionable harm. Changes in the law of remedies, however, have recently led some courts to question these harm stories. This Article argues for even more attention to trademark’s theories of harm; a clear-eyed look at the marketing literature, as well as the facts of particular cases, indicates that confusion about non-competing products is often harmless.

Jay-Z Has 99 Problems But A Sample Ain’T One, Rebecca Knight

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

No abstract provided.

When California Dreamin' Becomes A Hollywood Nightmare; Copyright Infringement And The Motion Picture Screenplay: Toward An Improved Framework, Nick Gladden

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Copyright And Freedom Of Expression In Historical Perspective, Pamela Samuelson

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Copyright Protection For Attorney Work Product: Practical And Ethical Considerations, Stanley F. Birch Jr.

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

The Insurability Of Claims For Restitution, Christopher French

Faculty Scholarship

Does and should a wrongdoer’s liability insurance cover an aggrieved party’s claim for restitution (e.g., a claim for the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains)? This article answers those questions. It does so by first answering the question of whether claims for restitution are covered under the terms of liability insurance policies. Then, after concluding that they are, it addresses the question of whether claims for restitution should be insurable as a matter of public policy and insurance law theory. There are long-standing legal and equitable principles that, on the one hand, dictate that a wrongdoer should not be allowed to benefit …

Early Filing And Functional Claiming, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A major problem in the patent system is that many patents claim far more than the patentee actually invented. In his perceptive article, Ready for Patenting, Mark Lemley argues that this overclaiming is caused in part by legal doctrines that encourage inventors to file a patent application as early as possible, often before — or even instead of — building their invention. Patents issued from early-filed applications, Lemley argues, tend to be overly broad because the applicant does not yet know how the invention actually works.

This response essay, part of the Boston University Law Review’s symposium on Notice Failure …

Sine Qua Non: Trademark Infringement, Likelihood Of Confusion, And The Business Of Collegiate Licensing, C. Knox Withers

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

"Every Artist Is A Cannibal, Every Poet Is A Thief": Why The Supreme Court Was Right To Reverse The Ninth Circuit In Dastar Corp. V. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Joshua K. Simko

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Does The Lanham Act Lose Meaning For Companies That Operate Exclusively Over The Internet?, Sheila D. Rizzo

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

This Note will examine the differences between trademark registration and domain name registration, focusing specifically on the terms an applicant may register, the rights associated with those registrations, and the manner in which a registrant may lose, assign, and enforce those rights so that others my not use the same registered terms. This Note will also suggest that a company operating exclusively over the internet may obtain greater rights, and therefore protection, than a typical bricks and mortar company, simply by registering its domain name, and not trademark status.

Toward A Definition Of Striking Similarity In Infringement Actions For Copyrighted Musical Works, John R. Autry

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Exceptionally Vague: Attorney Fee Shifting Under The Lanham Act, Kelsie Willett

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

The Road To Hell Was Paved With A Good Faith Belief: Why The Supreme Court Correctly Rejected The Good Faith Belief In The Invalidity Of A Patent Defense For Dangerously Narrowing Induced Infringement Liability, Sidney C. Eberhart

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Scenes From The Copyright Office, Brian L. Frye

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Oracle Erred: Functionality, Useful Articles, And The Future Of Computer Copyright, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

In Oracle v. Google (2015), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the " method header " components of a dominant computer program were uncopyrightable as " merging " with the headers' ideas or function. Google had copied the headers to ease the ability of third-party programmers to interact with Google's Android platform. The court rebuffed the copyrightability challenge; it reasoned that because the plaintiff's expression might have been written in alternative forms, there was no " merger " of idea and expression. But the Oracle court may have been asking the wrong question. In Lotus v. Borland (1995), the owner of …