8353 research outputs found
Sort by
Against Progress: Interventions About Equality in Supreme Court Cases About Copyright Law
Get PDFDespite expanding scope and the rise of “more” intellectual property, Against Progress demonstrates that turn-of-the century intellectual property practice challenges the “progress as more” paradigm. Through various methodological interventions – close reading of cases, doctrinal analysis, and various qualitative empirical methods – Against Progress demonstrates how contemporary accounts of intellectual property are not primarily anchored by claims of “more” or in economic growth terms. Instead, creative and innovative practices (and disputes concerning them) revolve around adjacent values and principles central to our constitutional system such as equality, privacy, and community or general welfare
Choosing the Consequences of Tam and Brunetti
Get PDFIn Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti, the Supreme Court did something it has never done before – namely apply strict First Amendment scrutiny to trademark law. This is a big deal. Many have argued, to relatively little effect, that intellectual property laws, like trademarks, raise serious free speech problems. It is therefore significant news for the Court to declare portions of the Lanham Act unconstitutional not once, but twice
On-Demand Drivers And The Right To Collective Bargaining: Why Seattle\u27s Ordinance Does Not Violate Federal Antitrust Laws
Get PDF
Post-AIT Review of Real Party in Interest Decisions
Get PDFThroughout the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) history, patent owners have tried to leverage a petitioner’s alleged failure to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) as a way to achieve denial of an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition or trial termination. The effectiveness of those efforts has ebbed and flowed. Initially, some PTAB panels viewed naming of RPIs as a jurisdictional requirement, concluding that RPI-naming errors were not fixable after the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar. Petitioners could lose their petition filing date based on RPI missteps, resulting in then untimely petitions. Later decisions backed away from that hardline stance, finding that some RPI errors made without deceptive intent were fixable. Regardless, petitioners are tasked with identifying RPIs to the best of their ability
