October 2016 – Page 2

Explaining the Supreme Court’s Interest in Patent Law

by Timothy R. Holbrook, Emory University School of Law

from Volume 3, Issue 2 (Spring 2013)

Download this Article in PDF format from The Jerome Hall Law Library’s Digital Repository.

Abstract: This Paper explores a variety of explanations for the Supreme Court’s recent intervention in patent law. In all likelihood, there is no singular motivation for the Supreme Court’s activity, and it may very well be a combination of some or all of these factors. Nevertheless, exploring these potential rationales offers insight into the workings of the Supreme Court and could aid those seeking certiorari in framing their particular issue to garner the Court’s attention.

Essay: “Advancing with the Times: Industrial Design Protection in the Era of Virtual Migration”

by Horacio E. Gutiérrez, Microsoft

from Volume 3, Issue 1 (Summer 2012)

Download this Article in PDF format from The Jerome Hall Law Library’s Digital Repository.

Abstract: IP laws around the world have protected the visual appearance of industrial products for generations. We now see an explosion of innovative designs in electronic products as demonstrated by offerings from a wide range of technology companies, including Microsoft, Huawei, ZTE, Baidu, and Sony, all of which are present today to join in this conversation. With the rapid change in technology, we now face the challenge of adapting that protection to address the visual appearance of designs in new virtual environments.

Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision of the Federal Circuit

by Blake R. Hartz, Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP (Indianapolis, IN)

from Volume 3, Issue 1 (Fall 2012)

Download this Article in PDF format from The Jerome Hall Law Library’s Digital Repository.

Abstract: This Essay examines how, to some, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has gone astray. While the wisdom of various aspects of the Federal Circuit has been questioned in recent years by commentators, relatively little attention has been paid to some of the most common and constant criticism: the dissenting opinions of Judge Pauline Newman. Examining the dissenting opinions of Judge Newman provides an alternative viewpoint of the Federal Circuit and how it has (at least according to one) erred. Part I discusses the reasons for selecting Judge Newman for the leading role. Part II examines the role of dissenting opinions in general and in particular at the Federal Circuit. Part III provides an empirical overview of Judge Newman’s prodigious collection of dissents before addressing some doctrinal areas where her view of the law departs from that of the larger body of Federal Circuit judges. Part IV describes how Judge Newman’s dissenting jurisprudence may be reinvoked in the future at the Federal Circuit.

Let’s Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, and Judicial Philosophy at the Federal Circuit

by Andrew T. Langford, Indiana University Maurer School of Law (Bloomington)

from Volume 3, Issue 1 (Fall 2012)

Download this Article in PDF format from The Jerome Hall Law Library’s Digital Repository.

Abstract: This Article began as a research project with the goal of examining the congruence of Federal Circuit claim construction doctrine and American contract interpretation doctrine. But during a review of the Federal Circuit’s own contract law cases, a broader picture emerged—one of a court struggling to interpret legal documents, particularly contracts and patents. This Article describes how the Federal Circuit’s contract interpretation doctrine parallels claim construction doctrine and ends by discussing implications for scholars and attorneys in the field of patent law.

IP Protection of Fashion Design: To Be or Not To Be, That is the Question

by Xinbo Li, University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)

from Volume 3, Issue 1 (Fall 2012)

Download this Article in PDF format from The Jerome Hall Law Library’s Digital Repository.

Abstract: Fashion design is different from other human creations protected under intellectual property law because of the short life cycle and minor differences in the products of fashion design. In the digital age, with dissemination happening quickly and widely via the Internet, imitators find it much easier to take a “free ride” on creative fashion design, sometimes even before the original fashion products go to the market. Meanwhile, fashion design lacks current intellectual property rights protection, creating a loophole for the protection of fashion design in the legal system. As a human creation, should we protect fashion design under IP law? What kind of intellectual property right should we choose to protect fashion design – patent, trademark or copyright? Protection of fashion design; to be, or not to be, that is the question.

Why Copyright Falls Behind the Requirement for Protecting Graphic User Interfaces: Case Studies on Limitations of Copyright Protection for GUIs in China

by Ling Jin & Yihong Ying (Rouse, Shanghai, China)

from Volume 3, Issue 1 (Fall 2012)

Download this Article in PDF format from The Jerome Hall Law Library’s Digital Repository.

Abstract: In this paper, the author specifically addresses the copyright protection afforded GUIs in China and discusses why copyright protection alone fails to fully protect GUIs, supported by case law.

Volume 3, Issue 2

Spring, 2013

In this issue, scholars and practitioners from across the world present on a variety of issues, including trademark law, design protection, and open-source licensing. Dr. Vikrant Vasudeva discusses open-source software licensing and intellectual property rights. Irina Pak of the BPP Law School in the U.K. presents an essay on the evolution of European trademark rights. Professor Estelle Derclaye of the University of Nottingham, U.K., discusses design rights decisions and the future of design rights in the U.K. Professor Alexandra Roberts of the University of New Hampshire in Concord examines the effect of trademark law on the name change of educational institutions. Professor Sarah Burstein of the University of Oklahoma College of Law examines copyright protection of designs. Professor Jason Rantanen of the University of Iowa College of Law presents a discussion on inequitable conduct in patent suits. Camilla Hrdy of Berkeley Law considers in discussion state patent regimes as an alternative for inventors who disagree with the current patent system in the United States. Dean Timothy Holbrook of Emory University School of Law examines the interest of the Supreme Court in patent law.

MASTHEAD

Editor-in-Chief
Jason M. S. Goodman

Editorial Team
Natalie C. Jones
Alex F. Lewis
Jennifer M. Fujawa
Francesa M. Cardillo
Kassandra M. Officer
Kevin E. Domanico

CONTENTS

A Decade of Registered and Unregistered Design Rights Decisions in the UK: What Conclusions Can We Draw for the Future of Both Types of Rights? by Estelle Derclaye, University of Notthingham, U.K.
Dissenting State Patent Regimes by Camilla A. Hrdy, Berkeley Law
Explaining the Supreme Court’s Interest in Patent Law by Timothy R. Holbrook, Emory University School of Law
Goodwill U: School Name Change & Trademark Law by Alexandra J. Roberts, University of New Hampshire (Concord)
Not (Necessarily) Narrower: Rethinking the Relative Scope of Copyright Protection for Designs by Sarah Burstein, University of Oklahoma (Norman Campus)
Recalibrating Our Empirical Understanding of Inequitable Conduct by Jason Rantanen, University of Iowa College of Law
The Expansion of Trademark Rights in Europe by Irina Pak, BPP Law School, U.K.
The Granting Clause and Intellectual Property Rights Management in Open-Source Software Licensing by Vikrant N. Vasudeva, George Washington University (Washington, D.C.)

Volume 3, Issue 1

Fall, 2012

In this issue, a variety of scholarship and insight is presented by both academic scholars and practitioners from across the world. Horacio Gutiérrez of Microsoft discusses the evolution of industrial design protection in consideration of virtual and technological advancements in an essay. Blake Hartz of Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP presents an examination of the dissenting opinions penned by Judge Newman of the Federal Circuit. Andrew T. Langford, Maurer School of Law Class of 2013, describes parallels between contract interpretation and claim construction in the Federal Circuit. Xinbo Li, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Law School Class of 2011, LLM, presents a discussion on protection of fashion design in the intellectual property realm. Ling Jin and Yihong Ying of Rouse’s China Technology Group discuss the limitations of graphic user interface protection in China.

MASTHEAD

Editor-in-Chief
Jason M. S. Goodman

Editorial Team
Natalie C. Jones
Alex F. Lewis
Jennifer M. Fujawa
Francesa M. Cardillo
Kassandra M. Officer
Kevin E. Domanico

CONTENTS

Essay: “Advancing with the Times: Industrial Design Protection in the Era of Virtual Migration” by Horacio E. Gutiérrez, Microsoft
IP Protection of Fashion Design: To Be or Not To Be, That is the Question by Xinbo Li, University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)
Let’s Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, and Judicial Philosophy at the Federal Circuit by Andrew T. Langford, Indiana University Maurer School of Law (Bloomington)
Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision of the Federal Circuit by Blake R. Hartz, Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP (Indianapolis, IN)
Why Copyright Falls Behind the Requirement for Protecting Graphic User Interfaces: Case Studies on Limitations of Copyright Protection for GUIs in China by Ling Jin & Yihong Ying (Rouse, Shanghai, China)

Volume 2, Issue 2

Winter, 2012

This volume includes scholarship from across the globe. From the United States, we present the work of Professor Jamie Lund, Saint Mary’s University School of Law; Professor Jonathan Stroud, American University Washington College of Law; and Professor Elizabeth Hayes, Texas Wesleyan School of Law. We are also proud to present scholarship from Professor Carl Mair from the University of Leiden (the Netherlands) and Professor Nicola Searle from the University of Abertay Dundee (Scotland, UK).

MASTHEAD

Editorial Team
Editor: Blake R. Hartz
Editor: Ariel Y. Bublick
Editor: Juna Q. Summerton
Editor: Jason M. S. Goodman
Editor: Chuck A. Meeker

CONTENTS

A Thousand Tiny Pieces: The Federal Circuit’s Fractured Myriad Ruling, Lessons to be Learned, and the Way Forward by Jonathan R. K. Stroud, American University Washington College of Law
Openness, Intellectual Property and Standardization in the European ICT Sector by Carl Mair, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
The Criminalization of the Theft of Trade Secrets: An Analysis of the Economic Espionage Act by Nicola Searle, University of Abertay Dundee, Scotland, UK
The End of Forgetting and “Administrative Rights” to Our Online Personas by Jamie R. Lund, Saint Mary’s University School of Law
Vernor V. Autodesk: Power to the . . . Producers? by Elizabeth Hayes, Texas Wesleyan School of Law

Volume 2, Issue 1

Winter, 2012

In this volume, we are pleased to publish scholarship from Christopher Holman on the impact of gene patents on whole genome sequencing.

MASTHEAD

Editorial Team
Editor: Blake R. Hartz
Editor: Ariel Y. Bublick
Editor: Juna Q. Summerton
Editor: Jason M. S. Goodman
Editor: Chuck A. Meeker

CONTENTS

Will Gene Patents Impede Whole Genome Sequencing?: Deconstructing the Myth that 20% of the Human Genome Is Patented by Christopher M. Holman, University of Missouri-Kansas City