UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
Intersection of Antitrust Laws with Evolving FRAND Terms in Standard Essential Patent Disputes, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 259 (2019)
Get PDFThis article addresses the issues of overlapping enforcement of antitrust laws and FRAND (Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) in standard essential disputes. Briefly, this article observes that the evolving FRAND terms will affect the degree that antitrust laws may intervene into SEP license practice. Part I of this article is a brief introduction to the background and main sections. Part II describes the evolvement of FRAND into a globally converged standard of royalty determination and a process through joint efforts of global courts. Part III discusses the changing interaction of FRAND with antitrust laws in three major jurisdictions, respectively China, European Union and the U.S., in light of evolving FRAND. Part IV finds when FRAND is able to constrain the monopoly created by standardization as what happens in a highly competitive market, antitrust laws should gradually step down from interfering with SEP license practice to avoid over-burdening the SEP owners and curtailing innovation
Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) for Goods Made in the United States, 19 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 64 (2019)
No full textSection 271(g) filled a loophole that allowed companies to escape patent infringement by producing goods overseas and then importing them. In filling this loophole, Congress may have unintentionally broadened patent liability for the production and use of goods in the United States. This paper discusses important ramifications of this broadened language and encourages the Federal Circuit or Congress to clarify the extent of patent infringement under Section 271(g)
Should Cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) be Regulated under Australian Financial Services Laws?, 5 J. Marshall Global Mkt. L.J. 27 (2019)
Get PDFThe rise of the popularity of cryptocurrencies in the last few years has sparked international debate as to the characterization of cryptocurrencies and tokens issued by ICOs. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies and ICOs raises fundamental challenges as to the parties and tokens that should be regulated and how they should be regulated. This Article proposes that tokens which are similar to securities should be regulated like securities. Under Australian law, this Article proposes that digital currencies should be categorized as financial products with the exception of utility tokens. Entities issuing ICOs and cryptocurrency exchanges should be subject to disclosure regimes in order for cryptocurrency purchasers to receive a prospectus or product disclosure statement. Additionally, this Article suggests that issuing entities have ongoing obligations to maintain the security of such platforms
The Impact of Private Covenants and Equitable Servitudes on Commercial Development and Redevelopment, 52 UIC J. MARSHALL L. REV 783 (2019)
Get PDFPublic and Private Land Development Conditions: An Overview, 52 UIC J. MARSHALL L. REV 747 (2019)
Get PDFJustice Anthony Kennedy as Senior Associate Justice: Influence and Impact, 53 UIC J. MARSHALL L. REV. 907 (2019)
Get PDFRe-Imagining Law School Clinics: Leveraging Resources to Do More, for More, Under A Hybrid Model, 43 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 129 (2019)
No full textAbstraction in Software Patents (and How to Fix it), 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 364 (2019)
Get PDFSoftware has long posed a quandary for patent law. As many have observed, software is an abstract technology—but abstract ideas are supposedly ineligible for patenting. This Article explores just what that means, what it doesn’t mean, and what might fix the problem of abstraction in software patents. This Article offers two related ways to understand the abstract nature of software. First, computer science defines itself as a “science of abstraction,” and that self-definition finds real doctrinal purchase. Second, software code is designed to be what the doctrine calls “functional”—to describe abstract results that can be executed on heterogenous hardware without regard to how the results are achieved. Because software is functional, claims to software must necessarily also be functional. But functional claiming is exactly what the doctrine forbids. This Article also examines and refute a third reason some have offered: the idea that software algorithms are “just math.” Algorithms involve math and can be described by math, but they are not themselves math. In fact, this Article proposes that the way to fix software patents is to require patentees to claim algorithms—concrete algorithms, written in pseudocode, just as they would communicate their invention to other programmers
