Duke Law & Technology Review

By: Mark H. Webbink A Winter 2004 article by Bradford L. Smith and Susan O. Mann of Microsoft published in The University of Chicago Law Review suggests that the development and growth of the software industry in the U.S. is a direct outgrowth of the implementation of intellectual property regimes, specifically copyright and patent, with respect to software in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This paper suggests that such patents were neither the sole nor the principal factor for the development of the software industry, that concerns about patents manifested prior to or soon after their application to software have proven true, and that patents are, in fact, not serving the interests of either the U.S. software industry or the consuming public. To that end, this paper advances recommendations for reforming the U.S. patent system as well as consideration of a new schema for protecting software. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0012

By: David G. Barker In December 2004, a mystery business, JGR Acquisitions Inc., purchased the patent portfolio of bankrupt Commerce One at auction. Commerce One had not previously enforced the acquired patents and many companies were using the patented technologies at the time of the auction. Patent watchdog groups argued that JGR–a potential patent troll formed solely to purchase Commerce One’s patents–should not be able to use the patents as a vehicle to extract licensing fees and that the patents should lapse into the public domain. Under current law, however, there is no provision for patents to be invalidated merely because they are used in a manner that discourages innovation. This iBrief argues that in order to keep patent trolls from stifling innovation and to protect legitimate patent holders, the Patent and Trademark Office should require an open post-grant review whenever patents are renewed or sold. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0009

By: Joshua Stowell Recently, the Federal Circuit in Knorr-Bremse v. Dana overruled almost twenty years of precedent by striking down the adverse inference doctrine, which had created a negative presumption against any alleged patent infringer for failing to obtain and disclose a patent opinion letter at trial. The decision, while strongly supported by numerous intellectual property and business associations, has created uncertainty for patent attorneys regarding the use of opinion letters in litigation and the acceptable methods for proving willful infringement. This iBrief addresses two specific questions left unanswered by the decision. It concludes that (1) Federal Circuit precedent strongly suggests that the plaintiff may inform the fact-finder that the alleged infringer failed to consult legal counsel, and (2) willful infringement findings can probably be avoided even absent an opinion from counsel, as long as the alleged infringer makes a showing of good faith intent to avoid infringement. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0005

By: James W. Soong For the patent owner, early provision of patent notice can help maximize recoverable infringement damages during subsequent litigation. This iBrief recognizes a growing trend of infringement suits predicated on patented enterprise software technology, and analyzes application of patent notice principles against industry convention. This iBrief examines the licensing paradigm of enterprise software and questions whether mechanical compliance with the marking statute should qualify as constructive notice. Borrowing from analogous Federal Circuit principles, this iBrief concludes by proposing alternate notice theories that would empower patentees to seek increased remedies consistent with industry reality, case law, and fundamental statutory purpose. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0002