Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

I Fought The Shaw: A Game Theory Framework And Approach To The District Courts' Struggle With Ipr Estoppel, Andrew V. Moshirnia

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Yes, The Ptab Is Unconstitutional, Gregory Dolin, Md

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Problem With Ptab's Power Over Section 101, Kristen Osenga

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

#Squadgoals: A Response To Seth Waxman, Amelia Smith Rinehart

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Remedies And Procedure: Patent Law's Continuing Frontiers, John M. Golden

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Drd Response To Seth P. Waxman's Article, Donald R. Dunner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Charting Supreme Court Patent Law, Near And Far, Joseph Scott Miller

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Are Internet-Implemented Applications Of Block-Chain Technology Patent-Eligible In The United States?, Gurneet Singh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Court Divided, Shubha Ghosh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Central Claiming Renaissance, Andres Sawicki

Cornell Law Review

The Supreme Court has recently reinvigorated the law of patentable subject matter. But beneath the headlines proclaiming the return of limits to patent eligibility, a more profound shift has taken place: central claiming is reborn.

The Court's eligibility cases are significant outliers compared to today's run-of-the-mill patent law because claim language plays little role in their analyses. In our modern peripheral claiming system, the claim language is the nearexclusive guide to the patent's boundaries. But in its earliest days, our patent system pursued a central claiming approach, in which the inventor's actual work determined the patent's scope. The Court's eligibility …

Patent Clutter, Janet Freilich

Faculty Scholarship

Patent claims are supposed to clearly and succinctly describe the patented invention, and only the patented invention. This Article hypothesizes that a substantial amount of language in patent claims is in fact not about the core invention, which may contribute to well-documented problems with patent claims. I analyze the claims of 40,000 patents and applications, and document the proliferation of "clutter"-language in patent claims that is not about the invention. Although claims are supposed to be exclusively about the invention, clutter appears across industries and makes up approximately 25 % of claim language. Patent clutter may contribute several major problems …

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …

“Either Secrecy, Or Legal Monopoly”: Why We Should Choose Fracking Patents, Sarah Spencer

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Property Policies For Solar Engineering, Jesse L. Reynolds, Jorge L. Contreras, Joshua D. Sarnoff

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Governance of solar geoengineering is important and challenging, with particular concern arising from commercial actors’ involvement. Policies relating to intellectual property, including patents and trade secrets, and to data access will shape private actors’ behavior and regulate access to data and technologies. There has been little careful consideration of the possible roles of and interrelationships among commercial actors, intellectual property, and intellectual property policy. Despite the current low level of commercial activity and intellectual property rights in this domain, we expect both to grow as research and development continue. Given the public good nature of solar geoengineering, the relationship between …

Assessing The Effectiveness Of The Eco-Patent Commons: A Post-Mortem Analysis, Jorge L. Contreras, Bronwyn H. Hall, Christian Helmers

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The authors revisit the effect of the “Eco-Patent Commons” (EcoPC) on the diffusion of patented environmentally friendly technologies following its discontinuation in 2016. Established in January 2008 by several large multinational companies, the not-for-profit initiative provided royalty-free access to 248 patents covering 94 “green” inventions. In previous work, Bronwyn Hall and Christian Helmers (2013) suggested that the patents pledged to the commons had the potential to encourage the diffusion of valuable environmentally friendly technologies. The updated results in this paper now show that the commons did not increase the diffusion of pledged inventions, and that the EcoPC suffered from a …

Patent Exhaustion Connects Common Law To Equity: Impression Products, Inc. V. Lexmark International, Inc., Kumiko Kitaoka

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Road To Marshall: Of Venue, Trolls, And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jesus Efren Cano

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Innovators Beat The Climate Change Heat With Humanitarian Licensing And Patent Pools, Andrea Nocito

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Complex Innovation And The Patent Office, Ryan Whalen

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

As the universe of available information becomes larger and innovation becomes more complex, the task of examining patent applications becomes increasingly difficult. This Article argues that the United States Patent Office has insufficiently responded to changes in the information universe and to innovation norms. This leaves the Patent Office less able to adequately assess patent applications, and more likely to grant bad patents. After first demonstrating how innovation has been responsive to contemporary innovation norms for hundreds of years, this Article uses information and data science methods to empirically demonstrate how innovation has drastically changed in recent decades. After empirically …

Mechanical Timepieces & Intellectual Property Protection, Nicholas Douglas

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

This article is meant to give you a basic understanding of mechanical timepieces—not just what they are, but how they are different from one another and why that difference is significant. Watches themselves do not need an introduction; they are ubiquitous and have withstood the peaks and troughs of social inequality and have persisted as a commonality between the rich, the poor and the middleclass since the beginning of their mass production in the 19th century. I focus here on the history of watches within the United States because, ultimately, this is a discussion of their legal protection under United …

Powering Intellectual Property Sharing: How To Make Tesla’S Patent Pledge Effective, Benjamin M. Hill

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Insuring Failure: How Crowd-Sourcing Sites May Be Forced Into The Role Of Patent Insurance, Spencer S. Haley

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Determining Enhanced Damages After Halo Electronics: Still A Struggle?, Veronica Corcoran

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act allows district courts to use their discretion to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed in the case of patent infringement. This Comment will consider how the Supreme court of the United States’ holding in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse electronics, Inc. changed the landscape of enhanced damages awards in light of willful infringement.

First, this Comment will examine the Federal Circuit’s approach that now embraces both an objective and subjective inquiry in determining enhanced damages, which may resolve the concern over the rigidity in the Seagate …

Patent Eligibility's Doctrinal Exclusions... Lately, A Scary Movie Too Difficult To Watch: Concrete Solutions And Suggestions, Kristy J. Downing

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent eligible subject matter is defined by the legislature’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” Since the nineteenth century, however, United States (U.S.) courts have considered certain otherwise eligible subject matter excludable from patent protection. The judiciary’s doctrinal exclusions’ purpose was to protect fundamental building blocks to science and useful arts ensuring that such information could not be monopolized by one entity. Presently, however, the judicial exclusions have been used to exclude fewer fundamental building blocks and more ordinary brick-and-mortar innovations after two U.S. supreme court decisions (Mayo …

Noa V. Doa: Increasing Medical Diagnostic Patentability After Mayo, Karen Mckenzie

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

The medical diagnostics market is expected to reach 65 billion by 2018. In March 2012, in Mayo Collborative Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc. , ("Mayo") the U.S. Supreme held that the Mayo Clinic (the "Clinic") had not infringed on Prometheus Labs’ (“Prometheus”) diagnostic patent because the Prometheus patent involved ineligible subject matter, and was therefore invalid. Section 101 of the Patent Act defines eligible subject matter an “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” as patentable subject matter. Courts have held that Section 101 contains an implicit exception, making laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract …

The Untimely Death Of The On-Sale Bar To Patentability, Daniel J. Kim

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreign Patent Decisions And Harmonization: A View Of The Presumption Against Giving Foreign Patent Decisions Preclusive Effect In United States Proceedings In Light Of Patent Law International Harmonization, Roberto Rosas

Faculty Articles

Where there is a United States patent, there are also likely multiple foreign counterpart patents. Armed with a patent, a holder can then move to stop others from infringing on his invention, and more often than not, the defendant will argue that the United States patent is invalid, often citing foreign decisions and proceedings in support of that claim. Given the territorial nature of patents and the fact that countries have different requirements and standards for granting patents, United States courts have applied a presumption against giving preclusive effect to foreign patent decisions. The courts, however, have made clear that …

Intellectual Property And The Prisoner’S Dilemma: A Game Theory Justification Of Copyrights, Patents, And Trade Secrets, Adam D. Moore

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

In this article, I will offer an argument for the protection of intellectual property based on individual self-interest and prudence. In large part, this argument will parallel considerations that arise in a prisoner’s dilemma game. In brief, allowing content to be unprotected in terms of free access leads to a sub-optimal outcome where creation and innovation are suppressed. Adopting the institutions of copyright, patent, and trade secret is one way to avoid these sub-optimal results.

Ignorance Over Innovation: Why Misunderstanding Standard Setting Organizations Will Hinder Technological Progress, Kristen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

On January 17, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Qualcomm Inc. in federal district court, alleging antitrust violations in the company's licensing of semiconductor chips used in cell phones and more. The suit alleges, in part, that Qualcomm refuses to license its patents that cover innovations incorporated in technology standards (standard-essential patents, or SEPs), in contradiction of the company's promise to license this intellectual property on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. According to the FTC, Qualcomm's behavior reduces competitors' ability to participate in the market, raises prices paid by consumers for products incorporating the standardized technology, and at …

What Happened To The Public’S Interest In Patent Law?, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

Protecting intellectual property is the government’s most important tool to encourage innovation, as our country has understood since its founding. The Constitution provides for the grant of exclusive patent rights to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Thomas Jefferson, who was initially skeptical of the value of patents, later remarked, “An Act of Congress authorising [sic] the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception.” From the very first patent, issued in 1790, to the 10 millionth patent, issued in June 2018,4 the United States has seen remarkable amounts of invention …