Tag Archives: patent

Private Law and IP: Licensing I

Posted on March 11, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 3: Licensing I Moderator: Yonathan Arbel Jonathan M. Barnett, “Why is Everyone Afraid of IP Licensing?”: Conventional view—be wary of encroachment on public domain from licensing transactions.  Medley of limitations lay minefield for construction of transactions w/minimum legal risk.  … Continue reading →

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

Private Law and Intellectual Property conference at Harvard

Posted on March 11, 2016 by rtushnet

Opening Remarks: Henry Smith—exploring the connections between private law and IP.   Session 1: Entitlement Design Moderator: Rebecca L. Tushnet Speakers and Papers/Commentators: Tun-Jen Chiang, “The Paradox of IP”: A paper looking for a theory.  Why do we have an … Continue reading →

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

WIPIP session 6: IP Theory

Posted on February 20, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 6 IP Theory 3   BJ Ard, More Property-Like than Property: The Asymmetry of Remedies in Tangible and Intellectual Property   Real property remedies are less “property-like” than IP remedies.  Property v. liability rules. Real property often much more … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

WIPIP, plenary session 1

Posted on February 19, 2016 by rtushnet

WIPIP, University of Washington School of Law Plenary Session 1: Innovation Policy   Stephanie Bair, Promoting the Useful Arts: Corporate Edition   87% of patents are assigned to organizations, not individuals.  How to motivate individuals/employees?  Assumption is usually that companies … Continue reading →

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

Showing irreparable harm isn’t easy

Posted on January 25, 2016 by rtushnet

Pruvit Ventures, Inc. v. ForeverGreen International LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2015 WL 9876952 No. 15-CV-571 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2015) (magistrate judge)   Defendants moved for a preliminary injunction on their counterclaims involving dietary suppplements.  Defendant Axcess is the exclusive … Continue reading →

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

AALS panel on the scope of IP rights

Posted on January 11, 2016 by rtushnet

Intellectual Property – Interpreting the Scope of IP Rights Moderator: Zahr Said, University of Washington School of Law   Margaret-Jane Radin, The University of Michigan Law School: Patent scope. The problem of describing innovation (thing in the world) in words. … Continue reading →

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

CFP 2015: Internet content blocking by the ITC

Posted on October 13, 2015 by rtushnet

Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference 2015 Internet Content Blocking by the U.S. International Trade Commission.   In April 2014, a little-known agency called the U.S. International Trade Commission handed itself power to block data on the Internet. Internet companies fear … Continue reading →

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

Notre Dame Roundtable on Drassinower, Part 4

Posted on October 2, 2015 by rtushnet

Session IV – Subject Matter and Limitations   •           Rebecca Tushnet   Drassinower defines trademark as the right to completely control the meaning of a mark as applied to a good or service: radically unidirectional, like a one-way traffic sign, … Continue reading →

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

Notice and Notice Failure at BU, panel 7

Posted on September 26, 2015 by rtushnet

Mark Lemley – Ready for Patenting   Patent’s problematic approach to what we want to encourage when we grant a patent. Long struggle with what you are giving us is simply an idea/conception or an actual thing/reduction to practice.  Various … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Notice and Notice Failure at BU, panel 6

Posted on September 26, 2015 by rtushnet

Margaret Jane Radin – Patent Notice and the Trouble with Plain Meaning   Notice is a cost and a cost-saver; hard to figure out its overall profile.  Plain meaning as ever-receding ideal.   Philips v. AWH (Fed. Cir. 2005); Festo … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment