Duke Law & Technology Review

By: Stephanie Chu

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in MedImmune v. Genentech shifts the balance of power in license agreements from patent holders to their licensees. This iBrief outlines the potential implications of the new rules on all stages of patent prosecution and protection. Further, it evaluates remedial contract provisions patent holders may include in future license agreements and how these provisions may mitigate the decision’s effects on preexisting commercial relationships.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0008

By: Ava A. Harter

This article first analyzes the innovative tort reform of the SAFETY Act and then argues for expansion of SAFETY Act type risk protection to natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and wildfires. The SAFETY Act was drafted to stimulate the development and deployment of technologies that combat terrorism by providing liability protection. Applying the same type of legislation to natural disasters will provide a commensurate benefit of encouraging preparedness and development of technologies that could mitigate harms resulting from natural disasters. The Department of Homeland Security voiced a desire to increase the use of the SAFETY Act by private industry. This article argues that one way to increase the utility of the SAFETY Act and provide more value for the American public is for Congress to extend SAFETY Act protections, by amendment or new legislation, to cover risk related to national catastrophes.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0007

By: Christopher A. Harkins

The rules of engagement in the brand-name versus generic-drug war are rapidly changing. Brand-name manufacturers face increasing competition from Canadian manufacturers of generic drugs, online drug companies, and Wal-Mart® Super Centers deciding to cash in by turning a piece of the generic prescription drug business into a huge marketing campaign with offerings of generic drugs for four dollar prescriptions. Other discount drug providers are likely to follow suit in hopes of boosting customer traffic and sales of their generic drugs. Now, more than ever before, attorneys representing owners of pharmaceutical patents need to be creative with their damages theories to maximize recovery and help their clients recoup the investments in research and development necessary to bring new and innovative drugs to the marketplace. This article suggests a novel theory of willful infringement to assist a patent owner in recovering treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0006

By: David Kohler

Using a variety of technological innovations, Google became a multi-billion dollar content-delivery business without owning or licensing much of the content that it uses. Google’s principal justification for why this strategy does not contravene the intellectual property rights of the copyright owners is the doctrine of fair use. However, over the last several years, some copyright owners began to push back and challenge Google’s strategy. Much of this litigation presents the courts with something of a conundrum. On the one hand, it is beyond dispute that Google’s services have great social utility. By organizing and making accessible an enormous volume of information on the Internet, Google facilitates broad access to a diverse array of material, a core value of the First Amendment. At the same time, Google’s actions do not always fit comfortably within traditional notions of fair use. In this respect, the Google cases present an opportunity to explore the relationship between copyright and the First Amendment; a subject that has received inadequate attention in the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court. How the apparent tension between the marketplace of ideas and the commercial marketplace is resolved may have significant impact on the development of Internet-based services designed to facilitate access to information, and this subject is the focus of this iBrief.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0005

By: Jennifer Giordano-Coltart

The advent of the digital era and the global market pose unique challenges to intellectual property law. To adapt, U.S. patent laws require constant interpretation in the face of rapidly changing technological advances. In AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) in a technology-dependent manner in order to effectuate the purpose of the law with respect to global software distribution. However, the Federal Circuit failed to consider the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law, and its decision now risks international discord and harm not only to the American software industry, but other U.S. industries as well. This iBrief critiques the lower court decisions in AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. in light of the presumption against extraterritoriality, and analyzes how the Supreme Court should apply the presumption in its review of the case.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0004

By: Serena G. Stein

With the birth of RFID technology, businesses gained the ability to tag products with practically invisible computer chips that relay information about consumer behavior to remote databases. Such tagging permits retailers and manufacturers to track the purchases, identities, and movements of their customers. In the absence of enforceable regulations, society risks being subjected to an unprecedented level of Orwellian surveillance. This iBrief addresses consumer privacy concerns stemming from the proliferation of RFID technology. It discusses why tort law, state legislation, FTC guidelines, and proposed regulations are insufficient methods to alleviate consumer privacy concerns and suggests amending various federal privacy laws, thereby prohibiting the underlying RFID tracking behavior.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0003

By: Cameron W. Westin

The Google Library Project presents what many consider to be the perfect fair-use problem. The legal debate surrounding the Library Project has centered on the Ninth Circuit’s Kelly v. Arriba Soft. Yet recent case law presents new arguments for both sides of the Library Project litigation. This iBrief analyzes two Ninth Circuit district court decisions on fair use, Field v. Google, Inc. and Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., and their impact on the Library Project litigation.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0002

By: Dennis S. Karjala

Using the language of mathematics, Professor Polk Wagner has recently argued that the impossibility of fully appropriating the value of information in a rightsholder leads to the surprising conclusion that expanding the degree of control of intellectual property rights will, in the long run, increase the sum total of information not subject to ownership claims and therefore available as part of the cultural and technological base on which new growth and development can occur. Indeed, he claims that open information will grow according to the formula for compound interest, where the interest rate is 100% plus or minus a factor z supposedly related to creation incentives. This article demonstrates that Professor Wagner’s mathematical analysis is simply wrong and does not lead to any of the conclusions he reaches concerning the growth of open information. It also shows both the difficulties and the dangers of the lay use of the language of mathematics in resolving complex social problems even if one does the math correctly.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2007 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0001

By: John M. Eden

In Kinik v. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suggested in dicta that the defenses available to foreign manufacturers in infringement actions under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) in Federal district courts do not apply to exclusion actions before the International Trade Commission. This iBrief argues that this decision is problematic for three reasons: (1) the Federal Circuit’s decision is inconsistent with the ITC’s longstanding tradition of consulting the patent statute when adjudicating exclusion actions under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, (2) the court’s suggestion that the ITC should be given broad discretion to resolve conflicts between the patent statute and the Tariff Act is at odds with the Chevron doctrine, and (3) if the ITC employs the broad discretion that Kinik confers to it by excluding more foreign art than Federal district courts could lawfully exclude under the patent statute, the enforcement of domestic patent policy in the United States could conceivably violate obligations of non-discrimination (Article 27.1) and burden-shifting (Article 34) imposed by the TRIPS Agreement.

• Download Full Article (PDF)

Cite: 2006 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0009