Tag Archives: design patent

Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 4

Posted on March 31, 2017 by rtushnet

Chris Buccafusco & Mark Lemley, Screening Functionality Commentators: Abraham Drassinower and Jim Gibson Gibson: regime shopping is even more troublesome than scope problems in one regime. Design patents seem to exist purely for regime shopping; everyone wants a patent right … Continue reading →

Advertisement

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 2

Posted on March 31, 2017 by rtushnet

Jeanne Fromer & Mark McKenna, Claiming Design Commentators: Sarah Burstein and Rebecca Tushnet RT: Great paper exploring the ways that different claiming regimes contribute to producers’ ability to maximize rights by claiming under multiple overlapping regimes, copyright, design patent, and … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

WIPIP, part 4

Posted on February 11, 2017 by rtushnet

Mark McKenna & Jessica Silbey, Investigating Design: An Empirical Study of Industrial Design and IP Protection Interviews & institutional analysis. Hypothesis generating—anti-copying/copying practices, etc. Buccafusco: consider who’s in the sample—don’t limit to self-identified designers. Following career trajectories of design school … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Law Review Symposium, Negotiating IP’s Boundaries in an Evolving World

Posted on November 14, 2016 by rtushnet

Panel One – Moderated by Joseph D. Bauer Mark P. McKenna, Notre Dame Law School & Lucas S. Osborn, Campbell Law School, “Trademarks and Digital Goods” BMW sued Turbosquid for hosting digital models of BMW cars—models could be used in … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Law Review Symposium, Negotiating IP’s Boundaries in an Evolving World

Posted on November 14, 2016 by rtushnet

Panel One – Moderated by Joseph D. Bauer Mark P. McKenna, Notre Dame Law School & Lucas S. Osborn, Campbell Law School, “Trademarks and Digital Goods” BMW sued Turbosquid for hosting digital models of BMW cars—models could be used in … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GW Design Law: Ecommerce remedies

Posted on October 14, 2016 by rtushnet

AFTERNOON SESSION 1: Design Patents & Ecommerce Moderator: Judy Yee, Microsoft Howard Hogan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: Counterfeiting is a growing problem, but sometimes they don’t use a copyrighted work of authorship but are still selling a knockoff of a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

GW Design Law conference: current state of the law

Posted on October 14, 2016 by rtushnet

Morning Session 2: The Current State of the Law Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, 103 and 112 Moderator: Daniel Gajewski, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox: Issues include continuation practice; maybe new rules coming.  Skechers sought invalidation of a Nike patent, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Design Law at GW Law: Design Patent Damages

Posted on October 14, 2016 by rtushnet

Design Law 2016, GW Law MORNING SESSION 1: Design Patent Damages Moderator: Robert Katz, Banner & Witcoff: Recap of the patents in suit and damage award. Text of 289: whoever applies the patented design or colorable imitation thereof to any … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Stanford Sociology & Psychology of IP, branding

Posted on September 10, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 4: The sociology and psychology of brands Discussion leaders: Jeanne Fromer: A lot of work in this area. Some is about how consumers react to branding in systematic ways.  Rule of thumb in talking to branding folks: if you … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Sociology and Psychology of IP, Session 3: What can we learn from IP-free zones?

Posted on September 10, 2016 by rtushnet

Discussion leaders: Kate Darling: attribution as something that people want rather than money in “negative spaces.” They know they can monetize their reputations.  Systems of self-governance often differ from those of formal law.  Attribution preference is not just about fairness/ego. … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment