Category: Volume 3, Issue 1

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.