 Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
|
|
|
- The Revolution Was Not Televised: Examining Copyright Doctrine after Aereo
- Authors: Bullard; Dallas T.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:46 GMT
- Patentable Subject Matter after Alice— Distinguishing Narrow Software
Patents from Overly Broad Business Method Patents- Authors: Zivojnovic; Ognjen
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:45 GMT
- Burden of Proof in Medtronic: The Federal Circuit's Idiosyncratic Patent
Jurisprudence Vetoed, Again- Authors: Zaharia; Sorin G.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:45 GMT
- Striking a Balance: The Pursuit of Transparent Patent Ownership
- Authors: Anderson; Nathan P.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:45 GMT
- A Unified Framework for RAND and Other Reasonable Royalties
- Authors: Contreras; Jorge L.
Abstract: The framework for calculating "reasonable royalty" patent damages has evolved over the years to a point at which, today, it is viewed by many commentators as potentially misleading and untethered from its original purpose. We offer a proposal to modify the framework for determining reasonable patent royalties that is based on recent scholarly and judicial analyses of standard-essential patents that are subject to commitments to license on terms that are reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND). Litigated cases have applied the traditional Georgia-Pacific factors to assess RAND royalty rates with modifications to account for the circumstances of the RAND commitment and the incremental value of allegedly infringed patents to the overall product offering. We propose that the reasonable royalty analysis should be conducted in essentially the same manner for all patents, whether or not they are encumbered by RAND commitments. We find considerable support for our approach in the historical development of U.S. patent law prior to the advent of the Georgia-Pacific test.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:45 GMT
- When Does Copyright Law Require Technology Blindness' Aiken Meets
Aereo- Authors: Liebesman; Yvette Joy
Abstract: Within the Copyright Act, innovation and technological advances are the bases for the enactment or amendment of many sections. Technology is often fundamental to the language of the section, and the underlying technology matters even when it is paired with a technology-neutral section. And because technology matters, how it functions could be essential in resolving a copyright infringement dispute.One such provision , 17 U.S .C. § 110(5), allows small businesses to "publicly perform" copyrighted music via a radio, as long as certain conditions regarding the equipment used are met. Only small businesses are eligible, and the proprietors can only use systems that are commonly found in homes. In addition, the performance cannot be retransmitted to another location, and only a single receiving apparatus can be used. Known as the "Aiken" or "Homestyle" Exemption, when Congress codified the § 110(5) of the Copyright Act of 1976, these seemed like reasonable limitations. At the time, lawmakers did not contemplate or even envision the existence or commercialization of wireless speaker technology . Now, however, one can connect a cellphone, iPod, MP3 player, or other portable electronic device via Bluetooth, standard radio, or even the Internet, to a wireless speaker. When determining whether a system falls within the Homestyle Exemption, both Congress and the courts have stressed the importance of examining the underlying technology. Technology matters in the Copyright Act.The Supreme Court's recent decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. has thrown the principle of"technology matters" into flux. The majority affirmatively construed the Transmit Clause as it related to several technology-specific sections of the Act in a technology-blind manner; indeed, it held that the underlying technological architecture of an allegedly infringing system was irrelevant. This decision may have wide-reaching effects, and cannot be viewed in a vacuum. When examined in relation to other sections of the Copyright Act of 1976, it behooves us to question whether this is what Congress intended.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:45 GMT
- Complete Volume 30, Issue 2
- Authors: Berkeley Technolog Law Journal
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:44 GMT
- Inventorship, Double Patenting, and the America Invents Act
- Authors: Pierce; N. Scott
Abstract: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) defines an "inventor" as "the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention." Prior art that consists of a "disclosure ... made by the inventor or joint inventor" or "subject matter [that] had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor," when disclosure is "made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention," is excepted from the novelty requirement. However, there is nothing in the AIA or its legislative history that specifies whether the "disclosure" by the inventor or joint inventor must be the work of the inventive entity of the invention claimed, or need only be the work of an individual member or subgroup of that inventive entity. Guidelines developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) do not clarify this issue. Early commentary on the AIA suggests that the work "disclosed" need not be that of the entire inventive entity. Such an interpretation, if confirmed by the courts, would be a radical and unnecessary departure from judicial precedent and would fundamentally change the effect of prior work by individuals on claimed joint inventions to which they contributed. The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, which limits inventors to a single patent for each invention considered patentably indistinct in view of another, would also be implicated, as would a recently proposed statutory alternative.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:44 GMT
- Federalism in Transition: Recalibrating the Federal-State Regulatory
Balance for the All-IP Era- Authors: Davidson; Charles M.
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:43 GMT
- What Happens in the Cloud: Software as a Service and Copyrights
- Authors: Determann; Lothar
PubDate: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:36:43 GMT
|
Free journal
