UIC Law Open Access Repository

Schwinn, Steven D.

Brnovich v. DNC: Yet Another Blow to the Voting Rights Act

Bond, Cynthia D.

Do the Pomodoro!: Timed Writing Labs in the Classroom, 34 Second Draft 1 (2021)

Kelly, Adam

Clark, Dorien

UIC 
REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 
 
 
A RETROSPECTIVE REFLECTION ON RIPL 
BY ADAM KELLY WITH DORIEN CLARK 
The Review of Intellectual Property Law (“RIPL”) was founded in 2001 by a 
group of students who recognized a need for a student honors organization devoted to 
intellectual property: patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. They 
envisioned RIPL as an outlet to voice progressive opinions on the state of the law and 
provide valuable information from peers, scholars and the bench. Over the past 20 
years, the landscape of intellectual property has changed dramatically, requiring RIPL 
to address new technologies and emerging areas of the law. Those founding students 
couldn’t have imagined how society and technology would change the world around us 
and how this would alter the landscape of the intellectual property profession. 
At the crest of the 21st century, the world was introduced to several 
developments that have transformed how we live. High-speed internet became readily 
available in the early 2000s and has drastically advanced modern living, introducing 
the world to social media, artificial intelligence, extensive consumer technology, and 
improvement of international business and relations, all of which need to be protected 
under intellectual property law. Modern smartphones were introduced in 2007, 
allowing users to keep, share, transfer, and store data that can be created in an instant. 
Business in the modern day has extensively shifted to e-commerce, which introduces 
new issues in advertising, marketing and sales, and payment technologies. Streaming 
services like Netflix, Hulu, and Twitch have brought thousands of copyrighted 
materials to the fingertips of most consumers. 
These advances in society and technology begat a host of legal changes, such 
as the enactment of major legislation and new policies around intellectual property 
law. The America Invents Act (2013)1 changed the patent system to a first-to-file 
system and put the United States on par with the other patent systems around the 
world. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (2000)2 was designed to prevent the 
circumvention of control devices to reach copyrighted material, which has had a major 
impact on content providers such as YouTube and other streaming platforms. With the 
Defend Trade Secrets Act (2012)3 the federal government unified the state laws 
surrounding trade secrets and created a uniform guideline that can be used in domestic 
 
1 
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified in 
scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.). 
2 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1988). 
3 Defend Trade Secrets Act, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376 (2016). 
[21:13:22] A Retrospective Reflection on RIPL 14 
 
 
 
 
and international business relations. Both state and federal agencies have 
worked to provide data privacy laws aimed at protecting personal data, criminalizing 
hacking and cyberbullying, and implementing standards for data security. Laws were 
created, for the most part, to address the changes in technology and provide guidance 
on how these changes will be handled. 
Practitioners must also understand the evolving policy considerations that 
change with the world view of intellectual property. Today, intellectual property is a 
complex economic tool that businesses use to grow its brand through the internet and 
other emerging distribution channels. This innovation-as-an-asset focus is due to the 
constantly changing technologies and the need to continually adjust to the market. 
The recent pandemic has only accelerated these advancements. As explained by the 
Hon. Paul Michel, retired Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit: “The Covid-19 pandemic has also worked to shift the policy behind intellectual 
property, with a focus on improving innovation in life sciences. Intellectual property 
constantly changes with the world around it and is a law that fails to remain stagnant 
due to its reliance on society, technology, and policy shifts.”4 
With these developments in society, technology, and the law, intellectual 
property practitioners have been exposed to a wide range of complex issues that often 
incorporate several areas of law, including data protection and privacy. Practitioners 
must now be well versed in these emerging laws and the diverse forums in which these 
issues may arise. An intellectual property practice before the 21st century may have 
required attorneys to know the core concepts of intellectual property, along with 
notions of contract law and other litigation-based tactics. Now, a more seasoned 
intellectual property practice should include a base knowledge of how the internet, 
social media, and new laws enacted within the past two decades may have impacted a 
client’s rights. Also, each attorney must know how to protect these rights in different 
venues, such as the Patent Trials and Appeals Board, International Trade 
Commission, and various district courts in which judges have become increasingly 
knowledgeable in these areas and the courts have enacted local rules addressing 
intellectual property. 
These societal and technological changes have also attacked new law students, 
each with broad educational backgrounds. The incoming classes of intellectual 
property student bodies are no longer made up of graduates interested in a career in 
patents, trademarks, or copyright. Now, those with backgrounds in niche areas—such 
as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, marketing informatics or data analytics— 
can pursue a career in intellectual property law, while focusing on the narrower area 
in which they educational or work expertise. The expansion of the intellectual property 
profession has required law schools to attract diverse groups of students to fill the 
current needs of the practice. Now more than ever students with interests outside the 
traditional notions of intellectual property are needed to pilot the new endeavors that 
spawn from changing society and laws. 
This discussion of the changes to the intellectual property landscape invites 
the question: what’s next for the profession? Students, scholars, and practitioners will 
 
4 Eileen McDermott, Judge Paul Michel to Patent Masters Attendees: It’s Time to Wake Up to 
Preserve Our Patent System, IP WATCHDOGS (March 16, 2020), 
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/03/16/judge-paul-michel-time-wake-preserve-patent- 
system/id=119874/. 
[21:13:22] UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law 15 
 
 
 
 
be faced with a wide variety of issues, technologies, and questions that will continue 
to expand the scope of the law. Many of the new laws and policies that have arisen in 
the past two decades will be further litigated and tested, bringing new depth, guidance, 
and meaning. These changes will highlight the impact of a legal journal like RIPL and 
serve as a beacon for why this pioneering organization will be more necessary than 
ever. Undoubtedly, RIPL will continue to dedicate itself to advancing the principles 
and values established by its founders and serving as the leading voice of the evolution 
of intellectual property law. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cite as Adam Kelly & Dorien Clark, A Retrospective Reflection on RIPL, 21 UIC 
REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 13 (2021). 


English

A Retrospective Reflection on RIPL, 21 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 13 (2021)

Ford, Stuart

International Law Online: How Will the Pandemic Change the Practice of Law?, 115 Am. Soc\u27y Int\u27l L. Proc. 289 (2021)

Does Austin\u27s City Code, Which Distinguishes between on-Premises Signs (Which May Be Digitized) and off-Premises Signs (Which May Not), Constitute an Impermissible Content-Based Regulation of Speech, in Violation of the First Amendment?

Muth, Karl

Keeping Score: Dodd-Frank Section 953(b) Reporting Ten Years Later, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 495 (2021)

Hudson, Lexi

The Save the Internet Act: The Hero America Needs, But We Deserve Much Better, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 607 (2021)

Healy, Katelyn

Right to Food Gone in a Snap? Evaluating Section 12-4.13C of the Illinois Public Aid Code and Whether it Adequately Addresses Citizens’ “Right” to Food, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 1125 (2021)

Honeyman, Sophie

Escaping Death: The Colorado Method of Capital Jury Selection, 54 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 247 (2021)

Simon, Diana

The Scope of Employment Test Under the Work-Made-for-Hire Doctrine Revisited: How COVID-19, Remote Working, and the Restatement (Third) of Agency Could Change It, 20 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 232 (2021)

Not a member yet