Publications and Announcements

The Class Defense: Why Dispersed Intellectual Property Defendants Need Procedural Protections

Copyrights & Trademarks

By: Jonathan Reich The intersection of antitrust and intellectual property circumscribes two century-long debates. The first pertains to questions about how antitrust law and intellectual property law interact, and the second pertains to questions about how parties can exploit property rights, including intellectual property rights, to exclude competitors. This iBrief finesses these questions and turns to practical considerations about how innovation and intellectual property can impinge antitrust enforcement. This iBrief develops two propositions. First, although collaborative research and development has often been and remains unwittingly misunderstood, what is understood about it is consistent with the long- standing observation that antitrust has rarely interfered with collaborative ventures. Second, shifting focus from “intellectual property rights” to “uncertain property rights” makes it easier to understand what innovation and intellectual property imply for enforcement processes. Both intellectual property and tangible assets imply the same processes, but the boundaries of intellectual properties may be uncertain and may, in turn, allow parties to game enforcement processes in ways that would not be feasible in antitrust matters that principally feature tangible assets. Even so, uncertain property rights might not frustrate enforcement processes as the antitrust authorities may yet be able to factor parties’ strategic behaviors into the

Continue

The Anonymous Poster: How to Protect Internet Users’ Privacy and Prevent Abuse

Media & Communications

By: Scott Ness The threat of anonymous Internet posting to individual privacy has been met with congressional and judicial indecisiveness. Part of the problem stems from the inherent conflict between punishing those who disrespect one’s privacy by placing a burden on the individual websites and continuing to support the Internet’s development. Additionally, assigning traditional tort liability is problematic as the defendant enjoys an expectation of privacy as well, creating difficulty in securing the necessary information to proceed with legal action. One solution to resolving invasion of privacy disputes involves a uniform identification verification program that ensures user confidentiality while promoting accountability for malicious behavior. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 008

Continue

Substantially Justified? The U.S. Government’s Use of Name-Check Technologies in Naturalization Procedures

CyberCrime

By: H. Jin Cho The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services relies upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation to administer the National Name Check Program, which conducts background checks on applicants for naturalization. Backlogs have led to long delays for aspiring citizens and significant legal problems for the government. This iBrief examines the First Circuit’s ruling in Aronov v. Napolitano that an eighteen-month delay in adjudicating a naturalization application was substantially justified. While the government’s inefficiency can be explained partly by an understaffed bureaucracy, overwhelming evidence suggests that these problems are exacerbated by a technological infrastructure that is ill-equipped to handle the scope of the backlog. This iBrief argues that the government should be held liable for its failures; and that long-overdue technological improvements should be implemented to prevent these issues from recurring in the future. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 007

Continue

Juvenile Justice, Sullivan, and Graham: How the Supreme Court’s Decision Will Change the Neuroscience Debate

Health & Biotechnology

By: Johanna Cooper Jennings Over the past twenty years, neuroscientists have discovered that brain maturation continues through an individual’s mid-twenties. The United States Supreme Court cited this research to support its abolition of the juvenile death penalty in Roper v. Simmons. Now the Court is faced with two cases that challenge the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without parole. Many believe these studies indicate that juveniles are both less culpable for their actions and more likely to reform; therefore, life in prison for juveniles is disproportionate, cruel, and unusual. However, others caution against the use of these studies in deciding issues of juvenile justice. This iBrief summarizes the cases currently before the Court, presents the arguments for and against the use of neuroscience in the juvenile justice debate, and analyzes the impact these cases will have on the future of neuroscience’s role in juvenile justice. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 006

Continue

In Re Bilski and the “Machine-or-Transformation” Test: Receding Boundaries for Patent Eligible Subject Matter

Patents & Technology

By: Matthew Moore In order for a hopeful applicant to be granted a patent over his invention, his application must satisfy several procedural and substantive requirements. Among the substantive hurdles that an applicant must clear is the mandate that patents only be issued to applications claiming statutory subject matter within the meaning of §101 of the Patent Act. However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has not construed that Section consistently over the years. Since that court’s formation in 1982, it has espoused two tests for statutory subject matter, and each time has substantially abrogated, if not overruled, the prior formulation. Most recently, the Federal Circuit has handed down the “machine-or-transformation” test in an attempt to redraft the limits of patent eligibility based on subject matter. This iBrief will explore the significant changes that this new test has brought to the patentability doctrine. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 005

Continue

The Impacts of the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law on IP Commercialization in China & General Strategies for Technology-Driven Companies and Future Regulators

International

By: Yijun Tian After thirteen years of discussion and three revisions, China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) was promulgated on August 30, 2007 and has come into effect on August 1, 2008. It is the first anti-monopoly law in China and has been viewed as an “economic constitution” and a “milestone of the country’s efforts in promoting a fair competition market and cracking down on monopoly activities.” However, the wording of some provisions of the AML, including the sections dealing with Intellectual Property (IP) protection, is not very clear. And juridical interpretations and more specific implementing regulations on the AML have not yet appeared. This has led to a lot of uncertainty for the operations of foreign enterprises, particularly IP related enterprises in China. This iBrief will provide an overview of possible impacts of the AML on the IP protection and commercialization in China. First, it will provide a brief overview of the AML, including both major compliments and criticism. Second, it will examine both opportunities and potential legal risks of foreign IP holders and investors when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impacts of Article 55, the IP-related provision. Thirdly, it will provide some practical suggestions and strategies for foreign

Continue

Cyber Warfare and the Crime of Aggression: The Need for Individual Accountability on Tomorrow’s Battlefield

CyberCrime

By: Jonathan A. Ophardt As cyberspace matures, the international system faces a new challenge in confronting the use of force. Non-State actors continue to grow in importance, gaining the skill and the expertise necessary to wage asymmetric warfare using non-traditional weaponry that can create devastating real-world consequences. The international legal system must adapt to this battleground and provide workable mechanisms to hold aggressive actors accountable for their actions. The International Criminal Court–the only criminal tribunal in the world with global reach–holds significant promise in addressing this threat. The Assembly of State Parties should construct the definition of aggression to include these emerging challenges. By structuring the definition to confront the challenges of cyberspace–specifically non-State actors, the disaggregation of warfare, and new conceptions of territoriality–the International Criminal Court can become a viable framework of accountability for the wars of the twenty-first century. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 003

Continue

Online Fantasy Sports Litigation and the Need for a Federal Right of Publicity Statute

eCommerce

By: Risa J. Weaver The right of publicity is currently a jumble of state common law and state statutes, but the online fantasy sports industry crosses state lines with ease. Having witnessed the great revenue potential of online fantasy sports, professional sports leagues are trying to strong-arm independent fantasy sports providers out of the business by using the right of publicity to assert property interests in the statistics generated by professional players, and used by fantasy sports providers to run their online games. The first such attempt–by Major League Baseball–failed. However, the state law nature of the right of publicity prevents any single court opinion from binding the industry or other jurisdictions. The National Football League is attempting to achieve a more favorable result in a different jurisdiction. If successful, other professional sports leagues will be encouraged to litigate the issue, and Major League Baseball might even attempt to re-litigate its position in other states. This free-for-all could result in different rules for different sports in different states, which would not only be untenable for the online fantasy sports providers, but a violation of the Constitution as well. A cohesive federal right of publicity statute would (1) bring uniformity to

Continue

Antitrust, Innovation, and Uncertain Property Rights: Some Practical Considerations

Patents & Technology

By: Dean V. Williamson The intersection of antitrust and intellectual property circumscribes two century-long debates. The first pertains to questions about how antitrust law and intellectual property law interact, and the second pertains to questions about how parties can exploit property rights, including intellectual property rights, to exclude competitors. This iBrief finesses these questions and turns to practical considerations about how innovation and intellectual property can impinge antitrust enforcement. This iBrief develops two propositions. First, although collaborative research and development has often been and remains unwittingly misunderstood, what is understood about it is consistent with the long- standing observation that antitrust has rarely interfered with collaborative ventures. Second, shifting focus from “intellectual property rights” to “uncertain property rights” makes it easier to understand what innovation and intellectual property imply for enforcement processes. Both intellectual property and tangible assets imply the same processes, but the boundaries of intellectual properties may be uncertain and may, in turn, allow parties to game enforcement processes in ways that would not be feasible in antitrust matters that principally feature tangible assets. Even so, uncertain property rights might not frustrate enforcement processes as the antitrust authorities may yet be able to factor parties’ strategic behaviors into

Continue

The International Trade Commission: Potential Bias, Hold-Up, and the Need for Reform

International

By: William Dolan The International Trade Commission (ITC) is an alternate venue for holders of U.S. patents to pursue litigation against infringing products produced abroad and imported to the United States. Because the ITC may only grant injunctive relief, it has awarded injunctions in situations where there may have been better and more efficient remedies to the infringement available through litigation in federal district court. The increased likelihood of injunctive relief bolsters the position of patent holders against a wide range of producers in royalty negotiations and can harm the end consumers through a process known as “patent hold-up.” There are currently sweeping and aggressive proposed reforms to reduce this harm to consumers. This iBrief suggests that the optimal reforms would not change the overall structure or scope of the ITC or its jurisdiction. Rather it would harmonize the substantive law, available defenses for respondents, and requirements for injunctive relief between ITC proceedings and litigation in federal district court. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2009 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 011

Continue