Similar Journals
![]() |
Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal
Number of Followers: 6 ![]() ISSN (Print) 0882-3383 Published by U of Santa Clara ![]() |
- SKINNY LABELS: CHANGING SCENARIO OF INDUCED INFRINGEMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY
Authors: Sandhu; Amit Dhillon
Abstract: A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention to the inventor. However, when it comes to life-sustaining products, these exclusive rights have a negative impact on people’s lives. The government has tried to develop initiatives, such as the Hatch-Waxman Act, to compensate and speed up the entry of affordable medicines into the market. But when one patent addressing one medical condition (indication) blocks the entry of the generic, the use of skinny labels makes it possible for the generic players to carve out the label and enter the market only with indications that are off-patent. This helps bring these unaffordable medical products within reach of the common person who could not otherwise afford them.This note will examine how the generic players navigate the drug approval system, the strategies of the innovators to ward off competition, and the public policy surrounding the availability of affordable medical products. It will also discuss the impact and implications of skinny labels on the market entry of affordable life- sustaining products and the landmark case that is changing the scenario altogether. Finally, this note will propose possible alternative methods to increase the affordability and availability of life-sustaining products by making it a win-win situation for innovators, generics, and the public.
PubDate: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:17:40 PDT
- IN EVENT OF AN (AI) EMERGENCY: INTERPRETING CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT
PROVISIONS IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS
Authors: Frazier; Kevin T.
Abstract: “Of this I am certain: If we prepare ourselves so that a terrible attack—although it might hurt us—could not destroy us, then such an attack will never come.” - Edward Teller, the “Father of the Hydrogen Bomb,” in an interview with Allen Brown of This Week Magazine in 1957.Bad actors have already used or may soon use AI to disrupt critical infrastructure, influence elections, and upend economies. Those most concerned about the risks posed by AI argue that it is a matter of when and not if state governments will have to respond to threatened or realized acts of AI aggression. Though a litany of scholars have examined the powers governors may use in emergency situations, less attention has been paid to the role of state legislatures in responding to destabilizing events.Scholars have justified their focus on governors for practical reasons—the executive branch of state governments has been deemed the “the center of governmental response[s]” to public emergencies. Two trends caution against perpetuating neglect of state legislatures. First, the legal and social bases for governors to take sweeping action in response to emergencies eroded in many states during COVID-19. In turn, many state legislatures, by law, by popular support, or both, have amassed more authority to respond in worst-case scenarios. Second, the likelihood of states being thrown into disarray will only increase as AI evolves and spreads; thus, warranting a closer analysis of what powers state legislatures may exercise to restore normalcy.Thirty-five state constitutions contain variants of a template “Continuity of Government” (CoG) provision promulgated by the federal government at the height of the Cold War. What events may trigger these provisions, as well as what powers they afford to state legislatures, has evaded judicial scrutiny as a result of state legislatures rarely invoking the relevant provision. It follows that the scholarly analysis of how best to interpret these important provisions should occur in the relative tranquility of the present rather than at the height of a calamity. This preemptive analysis may improve the ability of state legislatures to respond to disorder by clarifying the likely scope and duration of their powers and, ideally, by spurring amendments to clarify the provisions in advance of any such event.This paper serves as one (and, likely, the first) entry in an inquiry that merits immediate and robust scholarly attention. Relying on the framework set forth by the New Haven School of Jurisprudence, this paper resolves one of the most consequential ambiguities contained in CoG provisions. This framework deserves special consideration given its inclusion of myriad disciplines and its characterization as an “explicitly policy-oriented jurisprudence.”Scholars from across the legal profession have a role in contributing to this inquiry. The incorporation of AI into legal practice imposes a responsibility on scholars to anticipate how the technology may require new doctrines, laws, and methods of interpretation. Though this paper focuses on the continuation of state governments in the wake of an AI emergency, related inquiries such as how to rethink contract law, property law, and the like upon such an emergency demand more scholarly attention. The exploration of those topics can, in turn, inform what sorts of powers state legislatures may need to exercise and for how long.
PubDate: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:17:37 PDT
- RELYING ON UNRELIABLE TECH: UNCHECKED POLICE USE OF ALGORITHMIC
TECHNOLOGIES
Authors: Fraerman; Ali
Abstract: In the past two decades, police forces have come to rely on algorithm-based technologies for investigative leads. Several of these technologies are unreliable. They are prone to error, misidentifying suspects, and crimes. When relied upon, they lead to false arrests and unnecessary stop-and-frisks. Yet, there is no coercive mechanism, either regulatory or judicial, that meaningfully governs the use of these algorithmic technologies in law enforcement. As a result, law enforcement agencies are free to disregard potential errors and deploy emerging technologies against communities with little recourse.This Article looks closely at three technologies—ShotSpotter gunshot detection, facial recognition technology, and rapid DNA machines—to illuminate reliability issues common to privately-held algorithmic technologies and exacerbated by police misuse. Law enforcement agencies fail to screen technologies before using them to support individualized suspicion for searches and seizures. Thus, the police end up targeting criminal defendants based on unreliable information. But the Fourth Amendment does not meaningfully provide defendants with an avenue to challenge the reliability of technologies used to develop probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Extrajudicial regulation is needed to ensure that the technologies used by law enforcement are reliable. If law enforcement agencies continue to deploy unreliable technologies, courts should suppress evidence stemming from their use.
PubDate: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:17:35 PDT
- ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL DATA PRIVACY REGULATIONS AND HOW TRANSNATIONAL
COMPANIES ARE IMPACTED
Authors: Fujimori-Smith; Aska
Abstract: Privacy regulations are being developed and altered globally. An American company working transnationally will want to make sure to comply with the privacy regulations of each country in which the company either conducts business or otherwise utilizes that country’s citizens’ data. Currently, the GDPR has the strictest standards regarding data processing agreements between a primary organization and another data processor. While the CCPA/CPRA and the PDPA require DPAs, a company in compliance with the GDPR will likely comply with the CCPA/CPRA and the PDPA. Case law is evolving to address the extent of the reach of the extraterritorial legislation. However, if a company is engaged in extensive data collection, then the company should ensure compliance with all relevant privacy regulations.As new legislative responses emerge worldwide, it is crucial for companies engaged in international business transactions to ensure compliance with the different standards of that extraterritorial legislation.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:45:15 PST
- THE COPYRIGHT WORK OF AUTHORSHIP
Authors: Hemnes; Thomas
Abstract: The “work of authorship” lies at the heart of the Copyright Act of 1976. It is what copyright protects. Central though the concept is, the Act never defines what a work of authorship might be. According to the Act, it can be perceived in tangible fixations, but is distinct from the fixations. The Act also provides examples: writings, drawings, computer programs, but never describes how these might be distinguished from their fixations. Unlike the Patent Act, where “metes and bounds” of a patentable invention are defined by a patent’s claims, the Copyright Act provides no guidance as to what the “metes and bounds” of a copyright work of authorship might be.Most copyright practitioners and commentators are so inured to the concept that they never pause to consider what the “work of authorship” is, and what it means to say that it exists independently of its fixations. This paper addresses these questions. It will consider when and how the copyright concept of an incorporeal “work of authorship” (which for brevity I will call the copyright Work) arose in federal US law. The paper will compare the concept to Platonic forms, outline the forces that supported its creation, and conclude that the concept is a manifestation of cultural and technological developments in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries that required the range of copyright infringement to expand. The paper will then address the question of how the copyright Work might be defined, concluding that it is not distinct from its fixations, but is instead a set of fixations, defined by the rules of copyright infringement.Building on this definition, the paper then considers whether cultural and technological developments in the current Century, including social media, streaming, open-source licensing, and, most recently, generative artificial intelligence, will shrink the range of copyright infringement, and as a result, diminish the size of the set comprising the copyright Work. Finally, the paper will extrapolate from these copyright developments to suggest some more general conclusions about the nature of law as something that cannot be separated from a particularculture, technology, and time.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:45:12 PST
- NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS (NFTS) AND COPYRIGHT LAW
Authors: Ochoa; Tyler T.
Abstract: The concept of using non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to facilitate and authenticate sales of digital art dates back to 2014; but it took several years before the concept really captured public attention. Since copyright law governs the reproduction of works of art, including digital images, the connection to NFTs seems obvious. Yet, copyright law is only tangentially related to NFTs, for two reasons. First, buying an NFT does not, by itself, convey any rights to reproduce or display the work associated with that token. Instead, those rights are governed entirely by the contract that accompanies the sale. Second, minting and selling an NFT, by itself, likely does not violate any of the exclusive rights provided by copyright. As a result, although copyright may provide a useful tool for artists seeking to monetize their art, it is probable that its usefulness will be limited in lawsuits concerning NFTs. Ultimately, other legal tools (such as trademark law) may provide better relief when litigation concerning NFTs becomes necessary.
PubDate: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:45:09 PST
- WELCOME TO THE LAND OF TRADEMARK CANCELLATION––WHERE NOT ALL
FRAUD IS CREATED EQUAL
Authors: Barbier; Janelle
Abstract: The intellectual property community is buzzing about a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handing down a ruling on trademark cancellation under the Lanham Act. A divided panel grappled with whether the Agency had authority to cancel a trademark registration as a punishment for filing a false declaration. The majority held that the Agency was precluded from canceling the registration as a remedy for fraud unrelated to the issuance or maintenance of that mark. However, the dissent took aim at the majority’s reasoning, making a compelling argument that green- lighting any type of fraud harms the general public. Ultimately, the decision upended Agency precedent––of nearly fifty years–– presumably because stare decisis is no shield for ultra vires agency action. As such, this outcome is an important stepping stone in the ever-changing landscape of the reviewability of agency decisions.
PubDate: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:30:15 PST
- REMEDIES FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDING COMPASSION FATIGUE
Authors: Frieden; Rob
Abstract: Nearly every nation in the world has a government mandated program aiming to make telecommunications service more widely available and affordable. Universal service funding subsidies have garnered popular support largely based on the shared view that society and individuals benefit from progress in achieving ubiquitous and affordable access, initially to voice telephone service. Technological developments and changes in consumer requirements have generated support for expanding the universal service mission to include broadband access to the Internet, and to identify a growing number of subsidy beneficiaries, now including schools, libraries, healthcare facilities, telephone companies operating in high-cost areas, and people with low incomes. This Article summarizes the history and structure of the universal service funding in the United States with an eye toward identifying matters warranting immediate reform. The expansion of the mission to include affordable and widespread access to broadband service has added significant cost, complexity, and incentive to secure funding through fraudulent acts. Telecommunications carriers can lawfully pass through universal service funding requirements directly to subscribers, many of whom now question the efficacy and efficiency of the funding process. For the first quarter of 2023, consumers paid a 32.6% surcharge on telecommunications services, but incurred no contribution obligation when providing broadband Internet access and other data services. “Compassion fatigue” has encouraged litigation challenging whether the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has clear statutory authority to impose the functional equivalent of a tax on consumers and to delegate management of the collection and distribution of funds to a private company. This Article evaluates the validity of such claims especially when the Covid-19 pandemic highlights the essentialness of broadband access. Additionally, congressional legislation, enacted in 1996, codified the universal service mission and required the FCC to act. This Article also evaluates several different types of universal service funding reform proposals with an eye towards identifying their marketplace impacts. Most proposals recommend expanding the categories of universal service contributors to spread the burden more equitably that in turn would reduce the subsidy cost now exclusively borne by telecommunications service subscribers. New categories of subsidy contributors include federal income taxpayers, any venture assigning telephone numbers to subscribers, broadband carriers delivering data to and from subscribers, platform intermediaries, such as eBay, Facebook, Google, and Twitter, and creators and aggregators of content, such as Amazon Prime, Netflix, and YouTube. The Article concludes with an assessment of what reforms can possibly occur in the short term.
PubDate: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:30:12 PST
- DATA INSECURITY LAW
Authors: Stein; David
Abstract: By broad consensus, data security laws have failed to stem a rising tide of data breaches. Lawmakers and commentators blame these failures on some combination of underenforcement and the laws failure to recognize the full range of data breach harms. Proposed solutions would augment or expand existing data security laws.These proposed solutions share a fatal flaw: they are rooted in traditional theories of deterrence by punishment. Data security laws come in three forms: duties to protect data, duties to notify consumers after a breach, and post-breach remedies. Almost every data security law is enforced through sanctions, most of which are applied after a company discovers a data breach. In theory, companies increase their data security efforts to avoid sanctions. While appropriate for companies that purchase software, this approach is ineffective when applied to companies that build and provide software as an online service. In the cloud context, improving cybersecurity practices increases expected sanctions. And the cloud context matters. Online data security implicates almost all personal data; online services hold the lion’s share of personal data and offline firms rely heavily on cloud software to operate their businesses.This Article calls for a new approach to data security regulation, founded on a systemic view of data security practice. By focusing on system-level incentives instead of individual outcomes, lawmakers can bring data security law back into harmony with policy goals.
PubDate: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:30:10 PST
- THE NHK-FINTIV RULE: PATENT LAW’S WHACK-A-MOLE
Authors: Barbier; Janelle
Abstract: Since their inception in 2013, inter partes review proceedings have steadily gained in popularity, killing patents at an astounding rate. It is no wonder that defendants flee to the PTAB when staring down costly patent infringement suits in federal court. But an IPR institution is not a right––it is at the sole discretion of the USPTO Director. And despite increased petitions for IPR over the past few years, institution rates have declined. The reason for fewer institutions seemingly lies with the PTAB’s decision to employ certain factors in determining whether public policy weighs against IPR institution. This precedential doctrine—known as the NHK-Fintiv Rule—was created by the PTAB without any formal procedure. Following the Federal Circuit’s rulings that decisions relating to IPR institution are not subject to judicial review, the Rule has resulted in a frenzy of litigation and related pleas to the Supreme Court.While IPR institution denials continue to accumulate, accused infringers are engaged in a game of Whack-a-Mole with the Rule. Instead of continuing to attack the Rule as arbitrary and capricious, litigants should explore other avenues offered by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution—these attacks on procedure may be the key in whacking the Rule for good. Further, the ramifications of the Rule on patent-specific forum shopping and litigation by nonpracticing entities are profound. For these reasons, the Supreme Court should heed the call by technology companies to clarify when judicial review is permissible for acts associated with discretionary agency action.
PubDate: Fri, 26 May 2023 12:05:25 PDT
- ALGORITHMIC AUDITING: CHASING AI ACCOUNTABILITY
Authors: Goodman; Ellen P. et al.
Abstract: Calls for audits to expose and mitigate harms related to algorithmic decision systems are proliferating,3 and audit provisions are coming into force—notably in the E.U. Digital Services Act.4 In response to these growing concerns, research organizations working on technology accountability have called for ethics and/or human rights auditing of algorithms and an Artificial Intelligence (AI) audit industry is rapidly developing, signified by the consulting giants KPMG and Deloitte marketing their services.5 Algorithmic audits are a way to increase accountability for social media companies and to improve the governance of AI systems more generally. They can be elements of industry codes, prerequisites for liability immunity, or new regulatory requirements.6 Even when not expressly prescribed, audits may be predicates for enforcing data-related consumer protection law, or what U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter calls “algorithmic justice.” 7 The desire for audits reflect a growing sense that algorithms play an important, yet opaque, role in the decisions that shape people’s life chances—as well as a recognition that audits have been uniquely helpful in advancing our understanding of the concrete consequences of algorithms in the wild and in assessing their likely impacts.8
PubDate: Fri, 26 May 2023 12:05:22 PDT
- WEISNER V. GOOGLE LLC: AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE CLARITY REGARDING PATENT
SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
Authors: Poirot; Nicole
Abstract: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a precedential two-to-one decision regarding patent subject matter eligibility under section 101 of the Patent Act.1 In Weisner v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,380,202 and 10,642,910 are directed to abstract ideas of creating digital travel logs which are patent ineligible.2 Additionally, the Court held that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,394,905 and 10,642,911 are directed to both creating and using travel logs to improve computerized search results and are potentially patenteligible.3 The majority’s decision is an attempt to clarify the historically gray area of patent eligibility under section 101, but it is unclear whether the result will aid future decisions or add to the complexity.Judge Hughes’s dissent offers an interesting analysis arguing the focus of the patents’ claims does not warrant patent eligibility under section 101.4 He proposed that to be patent-eligible, the patents needed to solve a problem specific to the Internet.5 However, the majority’s decision seems to imply that courts should be more flexible and view patent eligibility as a simple threshold test, rather than halting the case in the early stages of litigation.
PubDate: Fri, 26 May 2023 11:24:00 PDT
- PLACING A BID: A COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL MARKETPLACE (STOCKS) AND
NON-TRADITIONAL MARKETS (NFTS)
Authors: Nieh; Haley
Abstract: Non-fungible Tokens (NFTs) are exploding in the marketplace and are not losing momentum anytime soon. Artists, athletes, celebrities, and even brands and luxury houses are rolling out NFTs. With this excitement, a great deal of profit is being generated; the market cap of NFTs is expected to grow from $3 billion in 2022 to $13.6 billion in 2027 (a compound annual growth rate of 35 percent).1Blockchain technologies are an empowering platform for democratization of financial instruments and transactions. Cryptocurrency has received some regulation from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but clarity and regulation of NFTs have yet to be developed. A key hurdle around deciding whether to regulate NFTs stems from categorization of NFTs as commodities or securities or neither. This paper is not meant to propose any substantive regulatory or legal policies; rather, to investigate the foundation of NFTs and the ecosystem it occupies in order to begin to think about whether to regulate them.With that said, I attempt to introduce a framework of factors that I utilize to analyze whether NFTs are more like stocks, less like stocks, or not at all like stocks in terms of their ability to act as a security. The factors that are weighed are: valuation strategies or ecosystems (such as social media and trading bots), platform or transactional capacity (such as blockchain as a platform, brokerages and exchanges), and finally investment potential or the expectation of investment (such as risk and profitability). This is the first part of my two-part analysis. Because I conclude NFT markets do not look like traditional markets in certain key respects, I look to analyze NFTs under the Howey Test under an investment contract catch-all instead. In sum, NFTs can be a security under the Howey Test, I analyze the Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT as a case study of this. The promise of community and buying into a community with perks, clout and influence, as well as potential profit off the NFT itself satisfies the elements of the Howey Test.
PubDate: Tue, 23 May 2023 22:13:30 PDT
- THE OLD AND NEW DIVIDES OF PATENT LAW: FROM THE THEORY OF ANTEDATION TO
DEFINING IMMEDIATELY ENVISAGEABLE LIMITED CLASSES
Authors: Condon; Eamon M.
Abstract: Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) ruled on a patent case involving the application of pre-America Invents Act (“AIA”) antedation and the issue of when a genus of compounds is narrowly limited enough to anticipate an individual compound found within the genus.1 On appeal, this case generally discussed why the claimant’s anticipation and obviousness claims failed.2While the entire Federal Circuit decision will be discussed, this Comment will discuss in greater depth the reasons why antedation is no longer applicable under the AIA, and the implications of the Federal Circuit’s decision to not set a standard for what defines a “limited class” under In re Petering.
PubDate: Tue, 23 May 2023 22:13:28 PDT
- RECONCEPTUALIZING CONCEPTION: MAKING ROOM FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
INVENTIONS
Authors: Villasenor; John
Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) enables the creation of inventions that no natural person conceived, at least as conception is traditionally understood in patent law. These can be termed “AI inventions,” i.e., inventions for which an AI system has contributed to the conception in a manner that, if the AI system were a person, would lead to that person being named as an inventor. Deeming such inventions unpatentable would undermine the incentives at the core of the patent system, denying society access to the full benefits of the extraordinary potential of AI systems with respect to innovation. But naming AI systems as inventors and allowing patentability on that basis is also problematic, as it involves granting property rights to computer programs. This Article proposes a different approach: AI inventions should be patentable, with inventorship attributed to the natural persons behind the AI under a broadened view of conception. More specifically, conception should encompass ideas formed through collaboration between a person and tools that act as extensions of their mind. The “formation” of those ideas should be attributed to the person, including when the ideas underlying the invention were first expressed by a tool used to enhance their creative capacity and subsequently conveyed to them.
PubDate: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 14:00:55 PST
- THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE AND THE THREAT TO REGULATING EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES
Authors: Johnson; Walter G. et al.
Abstract: Emerging technologies offer the potential to improve health and quality of life but also pose notable risks to safety, wellbeing, and equity. Law and technology scholarship posits that robust policy and regulatory strategies in the public interest are required to manage these complex benefits, risks, and uncertainties. At the same time, the Supreme Court in its recent jurisprudence appears eager to revitalize nondelegation legal norms, especially through the major questions doctrine—a shifting administrative law doctrine that increasingly appears to act as a clear statement rule when interpreting statutory grants of authority to regulatory agencies. This article argues the major questions doctrine and other aggressive implementations of nondelegation principles pose both direct and indirect challenges to the regulation of emerging technologies. These challenges often involve not only novel rulemaking but also “inherited regulation,” or the process of extending existing rules to capture emerging technologies. Particularly considering the political incapacitation of Congress, the major questions doctrine could pose significant legal challenges (and uncertainty), creating new policy and political issues in administrative agency efforts to manage emerging technologies. Empirical studies are needed to determine exactly how and where aggressive nondelegation canons, such as the major questions doctrine, impact the regulation of emerging technologies. Accordingly, the article concludes by reflecting on coming challenges and opportunities for which state and non-state regulators and stakeholders should be prepared.
PubDate: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 14:00:54 PST
- BIOTECHNOLOGY PATENT LAW TOP TEN OF 2021. EXPERIMENTATION, BLAZE MARKS,
AND UNSPECIFIED RANGES
Authors: Noonan; Kevin E. et al.
Abstract: Biotechnology has never demonstrated its benefits to society more than in 2021. The SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused the CoVID-19 pandemic met a formidable opponent in mRNA vaccines developed and supplied by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. These vaccines are claimed in myriad – not Myriad – patents and patent applications, many of which are destined to be litigated over the coming years, not least inspired by the many billions of dollars that have been, and will continue to be, earned by their owners. While the world waits for this storm of patent litigation, federal courts continue to be busy with ownership, licensing, validity, and infringement disputes arising from other biotechnologies, including, perhaps, up-and-coming CAR-T therapies. For the fourth year in a row (of what has become a tradition), we discuss, in this article, the ten most consequential, important, and interesting court decisions involving biotechnology patents. Our top ten decisions may not be the same as top tens compiled by others. However, to quote an expression commonly heard in courts hearing patent cases, à chacun son goût. Patent decisions delivered during 2021 tackled a diverse group of doctrinal issues. As discussed in the article, these ranged from how much experimentation is to be considered undue à la In re Wands, to what level of detail of disclosure is sufficient to satisfy the ever- written description requirement, to which types of behavior may rise to the level of inducement to infringe, not to mention assignor estoppel. Patent litigations filed in federal district court rose to 3,798, a number not seen since 2016. In contrast, the 1,333 patent actions filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB“) represented a substantial decline from 2020. In short, despite the challenges of the CoVID- 19 pandemic, patent litigation in 2021 evinced considerable vim and vigor. Described and analyzed in this article are the vimmiest and most vigorous of 2021 patent decisions.
PubDate: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 23:19:05 PST
- INTERSECTION OF U.S. PATENTS AND SPACE LAW – HOW INFRINGEMENT EXISTS
AMONG THE STARS
Authors: Perez; Erik I.
Abstract: With the recent proliferation of the commercialization of space, private entities are beginning to race towards the sky. Increased use of privatized money in space has greatly increased the probability of intellectual property used outside the bounds of the United States on the terrestrial Earth. Current literature has analyzed certain aspects of international space treaties but very few have proposed solutions to combatting space travel. Current literature has not proposed any solutions to the current evolution and explosion of space travel. This paper reviews the past historical analysis from previous authors, looks forward to the proliferation of privatized space travel, and tests a variety of issues coming to the future. This paper proposes a novel framework to determine what constitutes the territory of the United States for the purposes of patent infringement. This paper is broken up into four parts: Part I details the history of patent inventorship within the United States. Additionally, this part outlines the history of space exploration, certain space treaties the United States abides by, and defines characteristics associated with developing the space programs within the United States. Part II explores the United States’ jurisprudence with federal causes of action and patent infringement. Additionally, this part briefly explores international treaties the United States abides by and details the criticism of utilizing those treaties as a framework for outer space law in the context of patent infringement in outer space. Part III details solutions to bringing forth domestic causes of action for outer space patent infringement which were discussed in part II.
PubDate: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 23:19:03 PST
- AURIS HEALTH, INC. V. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS: A NEW “RIGID
RULE” FOR PATENT OBVIOUSNESS
Authors: Moawad; Jake
Abstract: AURIS HEALTH, INC. V. INTUITIVE SURGICALOPERATIONS:A NEW “RIGID RULE” FOR PATENT OBVIOUSNESS Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc.,32 F.4th 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2022)♦
PubDate: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 21:38:00 PDT
- FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECLINES TO FIND PATENT CLAIMS INDEFINITE FOR BROAD
DESCRIPTIVE WORDS (AND AN ODE TO 1L CIVIL PROCEDURE)
Authors: Barbier; Janelle
Abstract: FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECLINES TO FIND PATENT CLAIMS INDEFINITE FOR BROAD DESCRIPTIVE WORDS (AND AN ODE TO 1L CIVIL PROCEDURE)Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022)♦
PubDate: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 18:17:38 PDT