UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
“Sufficiently in Conflict”: The Reservation of Illinois Rule of Evidence 407, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 403 (2020)
Get PDFLaw Students and Cell Phone Use: Results of A Six-School Survey, 89 UMKC L. Rev. 269 (2020)
No full textSplendid Isolation: VA\u27s Failure to Provide Due Process Protections and Access to Justice to Veterans and Their Caregivers, 29 J.L. & Pol\u27y 1 (2020)
No full textIs the Emperor Still Far Away? Centralization, Professionalization, and Uniformity in China\u27s Intellectual Property Reforms, 19 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 145 (2020)
Get PDFAs China’s rapid economic growth continues to slow, the Chinese Communist Party now seeks to promote innovation as the engine of future development. With this new economic agenda, reforms to China’s intellectual property rights (IPR) regime have emerged as a key policy domain as China attempts to build market-supporting institutions and improve law enforcement capabilities. By reviewing the legal frameworks supporting specific judicial reforms and through non-randomized, semistructured field interviews with lawyers, IP officials, and industry representatives, this article analyzes how China’s evolving legal institutions are increasing central control in the IP adjudication process, building judicial professionalism, and ensuring uniformity in case outcomes in line with the demands of its economic transition. The question of how IP rights are enforced in China is of interest not only to those who want to understand how IP protections have developed in China, but also to those who wish to analyze the role that law and the courts play in structuring central-local relations and implementing institutional reform in a historically fragmented authoritarian system. Although China’s IPR regime is far from perfect, these reforms are indicative of a major initiative to improve IP protections, nurture domestic innovation, and increase the role of China’s judicial system in efficiently resolving disputes
Extraterritoriality and the Active Inducement of Infringement, 19 UIC REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 204 (2020)
Get PDFIn Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., the Federal Circuit held that actions taken outside the United States might make a foreign defendant liable for induced infringement of a US patent under § 271(b) of the Patent Act. This article questions whether Merial remains good law after the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in WesternGECO LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. There, the Supreme Court held that lost profits from foreign sales were recoverable under § 284 of the Patent Act when they resulted from acts of domestic patent infringement. In reaching that decision, the Court applied the test from RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community to evaluate the potential extraterritorial application of US patent laws. If the same test from RJR Nabisco is applied to § 271(b), an accused infringer who acts entirely outside the United States should not be liable for inducing infringement of a U.S. patent. In other words, this article concludes that Merial has been overruled by implicatio
Defend Trade Secrets Act and The Seizure Provision: Useful or Superfluous?, 19 UIC REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 218 (2020)
Get PDFOver three years have passed since the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) was passed by Congress. One of the remarkable and ground-breaking provisions of the act was the ex parte seizure provision. With its inherent expediency and the element of surprise, the ex parte seizure provision found instant appeal among the trade secret owner community. But the opponents saw a provision ripe for abuse and anti-competitive behaviour. In the three years since its enactment, the ex parte seizure provision has been used sparingly. Plaintiffs have found other provisions equally effective or at least “good enough.” Even when plaintiffs sought ex parte seizure, the courts often found other available remedies—such as Rule 65 temporary restraining orders (TRO)— sufficient for the desired protection. This article provides a background and overview of the DTSA and its jurisprudence. The philosophical and policy underpinnings behind the inclusion of the ex-parte seizure provision are described to provide the appropriate context. The article then takes a retrospective look at the concerns raised by (primarily) the academic community highlighting the potential for abuse, and assesses if such concerns played out in reality. Further, the effectiveness of the seizure provision, especially in light of alternative provisions available, is also investigated. Finally, recommendations are made for potential reforms to improve the predictability and probability of success of ex parte seizure requests in future applications. Specifically, a multi-factor test focusing on the defendant’s characteristics is proposed to determine the circumstances where a Rule 65 remedy could be used with the same effect as the seizure provision. A second multi-factor test is then proposed as a framework to analyse the likelihood and propriety of ex parte seizure grants
Can the Government Ban Automated Calls to Cell Phones, but Except Calls to Collect Government-Owned Debt, Consistent with the First Amendment?
No full textThe Cherokee Nation, John Marshall, and the Stadial Theory of Development, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2020)
Get PDF
