Search

The past few years have marked the emergence of the imperial Supreme Court. Armed with a new, nearly bulletproof majority, conservative Justices on the Court have embarked on a radical [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. GENUS CLAIMING: THE TRADITIONAL VIEW 5 A. Understanding Patent Claims 5 1. Claim Scope and the Disclosure Function of Patents 6 2. Enablement [...], The central feature of patent law in the chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical industries is the genus claim--a patent claim that covers not just one specific chemical but a group of related chemicals. Genus claims are everywhere, and any patent lawyer will tell you they are critical to effective patent protection. But as we show in this Article, the law has changed dramatically in the last thirty years, to the point where it is nearly impossible to maintain a valid genus claim. Courts almost always hold them invalid, either at trial or on appeal. Remarkably, courts do this without acknowledging that they've fundamentally changed an important area of law. More remarkably, it's not clear that patent lawyers and patent owners have noticed this shift. Invention, investment, patenting, and patent litigation continue much as they have before, but the genus patents that are thought to be the basis of this activity generally end up invalid. We document this surprising shift in the law. We explain why we think it represents both bad law and bad policy. We also discuss why it hasn't seemed to matter to the relevant stakeholders, and what that fact says about the relevance of patent doctrine more generally.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Your Parents' Internet II. The Splintering of the Internet A. Nationalizing Software and Regulation B. Nationalizing Hardware Networks C. Nationalizing the Network Itself III. The Internet [...]

I. INTRODUCTION II. THE DICTIONARY TURN IN SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE III. PATENT LAW'S DICTIONARY DEBACLE AND ITS LESSONS FOR STATUTORY INTERPRETATION A. TEXAS DIGITAL AND THE DICTIONARY REVOLUTION IN PATENT [...]

ABSTRACT When designers obtain exclusive intellectual property (IP) rights in the functional aspects of their creations, they can wield these rights to increase both the costs to their competitors and [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 603 II. COPYRIGHT LAW ENCOURAGES INTEROPERABILITY 604 III. INTEROPERABILITY PROMOTES INNOVATION 609 IV. CONCLUSION 613 I. INTRODUCTION Copyright exists to promote creativity. As a result, [...]

ABSTRACT: If a police officer searches my home illegally and finds evidence of a crime there, the criminal law suppresses not only that evidence, but evidence derived from the search [...]

As intellectual property ("IP") scholars, we write this letter with aspirations of reaching the highest ethical norms possible for our field. Changes in the field of IP make it incumbent [...]

ABSTRACT: A commonly offered justification for patent trolls or non-practicing entities ("NPEs") is that they serve as a middleman, facilitating innovation and bringing new technology from inventors to those who [...]

ABSTRACT: For nearly 40 years, since the Supreme Court decision in Illinois Brick, federal antitrust law has prevented indirect purchasers from complaining of overcharges caused by antitrust violations. The Court [...]

History shows technologies flourish where market entry is free. (1) If people are free to come up with a new idea, completely different than anything done before, and launch it [...]

18 See, e.g., Complaint, United States, v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010, at 7 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2020) (arguing Google has monopolies in both "the markets for search advertising and general search text advertising"). Forthose concerned with the concentration of private informationin the hands of a few companies, these changes maymake the world worse, not better.[33] Conversely, those concerned with concentration of dataon the Internet may want to break up the big data monopolies,if not the companies themselves. 32 While it's not impossible to require companies to purge information--see the "Right to Erasure" in Article 17 of the GDPR--it is hard to purge the effects of data a company once had and used to target advertising or content. EVERYONE WANTS TO REGULATE THE big tech companies--Amazon,Apple, Facebook,and Google.1 Companies that were darlingsof the media and government a decade agoare now under attack from all directions. [Extracted from the article]

A quarter century ago, Congress fundamentally changed the way the Food and Drug Administration approves pharmaceuticals for the market. The Hatch-Waxman Act gave additional protection to the inventors of new [...]

ABSTRACT: Legal doctrines vary in the extent to which they apply either detailed, categorical rules or broad, open-ended standards that allow for case-specific adjudication. Antitrust law is generally thought of [...]

I. NEW PROBLEMS, NEW SOLUTIONS II. THE CASE FOR TRADEMARK USE A. HISTORY AND DOCTRINE B. TRADEMARK USE IN CONTEXT C. DEFINITIONAL CONCERNS III. POLICY REASONS FOR MAINTAINING THE DIRECT/INDIRECT [...]

I. TRADEMARK USE AND THE LANHAM ACT'S RAGGED EDGES A. ABUSE OF THE "USE IN COMMERCE" DEFINITION B. THE SECTION 33(b)(4) DEFENSE C. THE ROLE FOR COMMON LAW DEVELOPMENT OF [...]

I INTRODUCTION It is commonplace in modern copyright scholarship to decry the demise of the fair use doctrine. (1) As copyright continues its apparently unstoppable expansion in scope, duration, and [...]

A fully automated artificial intelligence model integrated multistructure segmentation, feature extraction, and quantification methods from chest CT scans to identify high-risk extrapulmonary features and predict mortality.

The metaphor of cyberspace as a "place" is leading to the extension of property rights to the Internet, with negative consequences. The metaphor is a weak one, and should not necessarily govern the making of Internet law. Even if the metaphor is accepted, it need not result in the dividing of cyberspace into property interests.

The author discusses how standard-setting organizations deal with intellectual property rights which may hinder their standard-setting. The organizations can contract around intellectual property rights, which helps remove intellectual property rules that may block innovation.