Category: 2010

2010Copyright

On Federal Preemption of Contractual First Sale Waivers

Gary Miller Congress is working with a very sensitive scale and it would be tough enough to keep things steady without copyright holders sneaking over and sticking a big toe on the edge every time they feel threatened. It is true that Congress (or at least some member or members of Congress) might have expected parties to contract around the first sale requirement, and of course, the copyright holders assert that, with the world changing too fast for the statute to keep up, therefore the big toe has been absolutely necessary for protection from looting, piracy and/or insolvency–in other words,...
2010Patent

Proveris v. Innovasystems: Redefining a Patented Invention Under § 271(E)(1): An Examination of the Federal Circuit’s Narrowing of the § 271(e)(1) “Safe Harbor” Exemption

Duane C. Marks By reducing the scope of “patented inventions” within § 271(e)(1) to only inventions comporting with the “perfect product fit” analysis, Proveris has drastically altered the function of § 271(e)(1) and potentially impairs the ability of generic manufactures to fully utilize the ANDA process created in Title I of the Act. Adherence to Proveris’ “perfect product fit” rule risks establishing loopholes that potentially allows patent holders of pioneer drugs and medical devices to delay generic manufacturers from bringing less expensive generics to the market. This Note critiques the Federal Circuit’s recent narrowing of § 271(e)(1) in Proveris. Part...
2010Patent

Patent Litigation: What About Qualification Standards for Court Appointed Experts?

Dolly Wu “The descriptions in patents are not addressed to the public generally, to lawyers or to judges, but, as [35 U.S.C.] section 112 states, to those skilled in the art to which the invention pertains.” This leads to a tenet of patent law, that the meaning of patents and claim terms must be construed by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”). However, federal district court docket statistics show that for tasks such as claim construction, the “experts” hired by courts to aid the courts themselves may, in fact, not meet the POSA standard In contrast,...
2010Publicity

The Presidential Right of Publicity

Sean T. Masson Although the right of publicity has historically been a cause of action invoked by celebrities to protect themselves from an extensive range of conduct, the question remains whether non-traditional celebrities deserve the same rights. Can President Obama protect against the unauthorized use of his image since he has arguably attained celebrity-like status? I believe the answer is, to modify the President’s campaign mantra, “Yes [He] Can.” This Essay briefly discusses the application of the right of publicity to President Obama and concludes with suggestions on how he should protect that right. As evidenced by the multi-million dollar...
2010Technology Law

File Sharing: A Tool for Innovation, or a Criminal Instrument?

Andrew Eichner The dawn of peer-to-peer networks and the subsequent rise of file sharing over the Internet have proved to be a considerable threat to the revenues of the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) and the international music community. While early music downloading across peer-to-peer networks on the Internet was largely limited “to college students with access to fast pipes and techno geeks sufficiently driven to search the Net for the latest Phish bootlegs,” the market for illegally downloaded music taken from file sharing websites has expanded to astronomic proportions and continues to do so even at present. The...
2010Technology Law

A Constitutional Right to Deceive?: The First Amendment Implications of Regulating Pay per Click

Peter T. Tschanz Despite Paid Placement’s utility from a marketing perspective, the practice has been sharply criticized. Some authors argue that a search engine’s failure to clearly segregate Sponsored Results leads many users to believe they are delivered based on relevancy alone. These authors argue that this misconception can only be corrected by incorporating uniform regulations for presenting Sponsored Results. Although these regulations are well-intentioned, requiring a normative framework for arranging Sponsored Results may come at a price. The right to freedom of speech necessarily includes the right not to speak. Imposing a regulatory framework for presenting Sponsored Results would...