Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

“There’S A Hole In The Bucket:” The Effective Elimination Of The Inequitable Conduct Doctrine,11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 717 (2012), Katherine E. White

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The year 2011 proved to be a momentous year in patent law. The doctrine of inequitable conduct was particularly rocked by changes to the law. Both the Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. and the America Invents Act effectively gutted the inequitable conduct cause of action. Therasense tightened the materiality and intent standards, thus lowering the duty of candor standard that will be enforced in the courts. The America Invents Act created an escape clause for those who fail to disclose adequately during initial examination through the supplemental examination process. Did Congress and the Federal …

Exploring Apple’S Ipad Trademark Blunder: Chinese Trademark Approval Procedure Is A Trademark Protection Safeguard Or Another National Protectionism?, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 777 (2012), Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

It is well-reported that Apple’s iPad® product embodies technological advances that are protected by U.S. and foreign patents. One would also assume that it is protected by trademarks in various jurisdictions, including China. However, to this day, Apple struggles to prefect its iPad trademark rights in China, the second largest economy in the world. While the Chinese trademark registration approval process is different from that in the U.S. practice, such approval step is essential to every international corporation doing business in China. This article explains where Apple may have overlooked this step in the overall trademark registration process in China …

Cloud Computing And The Doctrine Of Joint Infringement: ‘Current Impact’ And Future Possibilities, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 673 (2012), Nicole D. Galli, Edward Gecovich

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The computing landscape is changing in that businesses – and individuals – are increasingly turning to “the cloud” for computing solutions. In an attempt to maintain patent portfolios that keep pace with the changing computing landscape, an increasing number of corporations are filing for patent protection on cloud computing related technologies. Cloud computing patents, however, may be difficult to enforce in light of current Federal Circuit case law relating to the Joint Infringement Doctrine. Two cases, Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., decided by the Federal Circuit in 2010 and in …

Cybersex: Protecting Sexual Content In The Digital Age, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 815 (2012), Nicole Chaney

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Advertisers employ bare-skinned models and sex appeal to seduce American consumers with every magazine, billboard, and television advertisement. The ubiquity of sexual gratification has reached a tangible quality in American culture, but sex is still somehow taboo in our legal system. Despite the vast market for online adult entertainment, obscenity laws have been used to strike down claims for adult content copyright owners. These content owners are producing creative sexual expression for the public benefit, but they are being denied the same economic incentives granted to their mainstream counterparts. Ironically, Playboy Co. is an outlier in the adult entertainment industry …

The Public Good V. A Monetary Profit: The News Organizations’ Utilization Of The Fair Use Doctrine, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 841 (2012), Frank J. Lukes

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

The main purpose of copyright law is to promote the arts and sciences for the public good. The secondary purpose of copyright law is to ensure the copyright holder retains a benefit for their work. Additionally, the Fair Use Doctrine allows a defense to an individual who uses the copyrighted work without permission, so long as a four-factor test under the Doctrine is properly met. The four factors this test analyzes are the Purpose Factor, The Nature of the Work Factor, The Amount Used Factor, and The Effect on the Market Factor. When news organizations have sought protection under the …

For Sale. Patents. Never Used: Gaps In The Tax Code For Patent Sales, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 859 (2012), Khurram Naik

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Patent sales are an underappreciated means of monetizing patents. Recent blockbuster patent sales indicate heightened demand for patent acquisitions. There is evidence that such patent sales transfer patents to parties more skilled in patent enforcement, reducing litigation. Patent sales also move capital to innovators, which enhance incentives to innovate. But crucially, C corporations do not benefit from advantaged tax treatment. Efforts by other nations to encourage patent use and sales by providing “patent box” preferential tax regimes may provide some guidance for remedying this gap in the tax code.

The Ownership And Exploitation Of Personal Identity In The New Media Age, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2012), Thomas Hemnes

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) has never been more valuable. In today’s networked world, seemingly trivial facts can be collected, molded into a marketable economic profile, and transferred in the blink of an eye. To be sure, the commodification of PII allows for provision of dramatically more efficient and effective services. Yet the potential for privacy abuses is substantial. What interest does one have in the constellation of facts that defines one’s identity? Is it something one can own, like their right of publicity? Or are others free to use what they learn about a person? This article surveys current privacy …

What Trademark Law Could Learn From Employment Law, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 118 (2012), Robert A. Kearney

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Trademark litigation is as unpredictable as it is expensive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) considers as many as thirteen different factors when evaluating whether a trademark causes a “likelihood of confusion.” Federal courts use many of the same factors, though which factors are chosen differ by jurisdiction, and, do not necessarily overlap with the Board. Further, a party can litigate for a time before the Board, then in federal court, and then back before the Board. And, if this were not enough, the Board’s decisions have little if any preclusive effect on the court, and, a court’s decision …

Hotfile, Megaupload, And The Future Of Copyright On The Internet: What Can Cyberlockers Tell Us About Dmca Reform?, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 205 (2012), Ross Drath

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

More than a decade ago, Napster brought the issue of copyright infringement by file-sharing to the center of the public stage. How would a body of copyright law built to regulate tangible objects apply in the digital realm? The safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, intended as a compromise between the interests of copyright owners and webhosts, have instead introduced legal uncertainty and allocated the costs of online enforcement both inefficiently and disproportionately. While Napster and several other major peer-to-peer services have been shuttered in the intervening period, the scope of online copyright infringement continues to grow …

India’S Use It Or Lose It: Time To Revisit Trips?, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 797 (2012), Levon Barsoumian

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

India is one of a number of countries which impose a “local working” requirement on patented inventions. This finds its source in sections 83, 84, and 89 of India’s Patent Act. A recent decision by the Controller of Patents granting a compulsory license to Natco for a Bayer-patented anti-cancer drug confirms that importation will not satisfy this requirement. Corporations seeking to produce and market products for international sale will receive varying degrees of patent protection from different nations. This comment proposes an amendment to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) defining what local working requirements are …

Are Royalties Reasonable In Patent Infringment Suits? Using Hindsight At The Hypothetical Negotiating Table, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 241 (2012), Michael J. Carrozza

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Reasonable royalties have become the primary form of relief in patent infringement lawsuits. Once a patent is found valid and infringed, royalties are calculated based on a hypothetical license negotiation between the patent owner and infringer said to take place at the moment infringement began. The calculations seek to arrive at a royalty amount the parties would have agreed upon had an actual license been negotiated. But there is disagreement among courts as to what information should inform the royalty amount. Some take the hypothetical negotiation literally and disallow post-infringement information from entering the calculations because such information would have …

Taking, Tort, Or Crown Right?: The Confused Early History Of Government Patent Policy, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 145 (2012), Sean M. O'Connor

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

From the early days of the Republic, Congress and the federal courts grappled with the government’s rights to own or use patents it issued. Courts rejected the British “Crown Rights” rule that allowed the sovereign to practice whatever patents it issued. Instead, the federal government was conceptualized as a legal person on par with any other persons with regard to issued patents. But, this simple rule presented challenges as complexities arose in three intertwined patent rights scenarios. The first involved inventions by government employees. The second revolved around government and government contractor use of patents held by private citizens. And …

You Say, “普拉达” I Say "Counterfeit": The Perils Of Civil Litigation As A Trademark Protection Strategy In China, 12 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 261 (2012), Tricia M. Brauer

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Over the past century, China has been depicted as being solely to blame for the world’s most serious commercial piracy problem. But this characterization is not entirely China’s fault. Multinational corporations and international brand owners in China have adopted a flawed approach to combating trademark infringement that is actually making the problem worse within Chinese walls. Companies and brand owners have primarily implemented one dimensional, enforcement only approaches that rely specifically on litigation as a means to curb counterfeiting and trademark infringement. Since 2001, China has made substantial strides in the laws governing trademarks and has trended toward positive treatment …

Continuing The Conversation Of "The Economic Irrationality Of The Patent Misuse Doctrine", Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article seeks to use economic tools and insights to find the best way for courts to construe or for Congress to modify the patent misuse doctrine. As the title suggests, it attempts to continue the conversation begun by Professor Mark Lemley in his often-cited Comment, The Economic irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine.

Part I provides a brief history of the doctrine of patent misuse. Part II begins with a premise that a partial economic equilibrium can be achieved by attempting to match Congress's intended patent scope with the actual patent scope, even assuming that economic tools can never …

A Better Balance For All: Compulsory Licensing For Non-Use Technology Patents, Jason Comer

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Restoring Public Access In The Wake Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Michael Duni

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Houston, We've Got A [Provisional] Problem: An Analysis Of 35 U.S.C. § 154(D), Brian L. Tremer

Student Works

This article considers the inherent problems in granting provisional patent rights and the resulting tension between patent applicants and the public domain. Patent law is designed to encourage innovation and incentivize creation. To this end, there must be a balance struck between the private rights granted to a creator and the rights removed from the public. Patents, once issued, allow individuals to seize a limited monopoly over their intellectual property as a constitutional right. These exclusive rights provide incentive to disclose new works to society and thus justify weakening the public’s rights. 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) grants to a patent …

Closing The Divided Infringement Gap, David Leach

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Cleaning Up The Morass: Adopting A Uniform Standard In Process Patent Review, Daniel Klyashtorny

Student Works

No abstract provided.

China's Current Intellectual Property Plan, Policies & Practices, Hope Shimabuku, Mark Cohen

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.