Intellectual Property Law eJournal最新文献

{"title":"The Identification of Trademark Filing Strategies: Creating, Hedging, Modernizing, and Extending Brands","authors":"Philipp G. Sandner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1469711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1469711","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of paper is to explore companies’ trademark portfolios in detail. Companies’ trademark portfolios are not loose agglomerations of trademarks but, instead, contain complex structures that coherently protect a company’s brand. I develop and apply a technique that reveals the inherent structure of trademark portfolios. This allows an assessment of how brands are protected by trademarks and how trademark filing strategies produced these portfolios. Trademarks protect brands and make them visible. Brand management decisions can therefore be observed through trademarks. When new products are introduced, brand management deals with decisions to either create new brands or use existing ones. Such decisions require trademark filings which reflect both the creation of new brands as well as the development of existing brands through hedging, modernization, and extension.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124288892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"P2P Business and Legal Models for Increasing Accessibility to Popular Culture","authors":"E. Altman, S. Wong, Julio Rojas-Mora","doi":"10.1007/978-3-642-11532-5_15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11532-5_15","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128845956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evergreening of Patents and Indian Patents Law","authors":"Shanti Kumar, N. Shukla, Tanushree Sangal","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1420003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1420003","url":null,"abstract":"Inventive activity necessitates dissemination of information across the spectrum of intellectual provenance, to ensure advancement in research and development. The disclosure requirement in case of patents fulfills this very purpose. Obtaining monopoly over an invention is subject to the disclosure requirement, whereafter the monopoly rights can be exercised for the term of the patent. However, there are attempts to unjustifiably stretch this monopoly by obtaining patents over insignificant or trivial modifications of the invention. This paper seeks to analyse the practice of evergreening in the context of Indian Patents Act and discusses the famous Novartis case, where the test of evergreening efficacy was laid down.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121848518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Indirect Copyright Liability and Technological Innovation","authors":"Peter S. Menell","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1415804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1415804","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decade, numerous scholars and commentators have asserted that the indirect copyright liability standards applied in the Napster, Aimster, and Grokster decisions, among others, significantly chill technological innovation. This article examines this critical conjecture and offers both a broader framework for assessing the relationship between indirect copyright liability and technological innovation and some suggestive empirical results. The conceptual analysis demonstrates that the question of whether indirect copyright liability chills technological innovation inherently requires consideration of a broader range of social balances, market mechanisms, and roles for mediating institutions. Several countervailing forces, such as the relatively modest capital requirements associated with the technology at issue, the nature of the many established research environments, the philosophical and cultural orientation of many digital technology researchers, various liability-insulating institutions, the ability of investors and technology companies to manage risk, and the importance of technological advance in fields unaffected by copyright liability, suggest that the effects of indirect copyright liability on innovation in replication and distribution technologies will be less dire and more complex than the conjecture suggests. Moreover, the Chilled Innovation conjecture downplays the beneficial effects of indirect copyright liability on the development of balanced technologies (those that tend to balance incentives to create copyrighted works with advances in information dissemination) while ignoring the adverse effects of broad immunity, which fosters deployment of parasitic technologies that tend to drive out balanced technologies. To the extent that the Chilled Innovation conjecture has force, it is not at the basic research and development stages of the innovation pipeline, but rather at the commercialization stage – which is where in the innovation process such effects are most appropriately focused. This limits the effects of choking innovation in its infancy. The article also offers a partial test of the chilled innovation conjecture by examining academic research and patent data. The findings indicate that the Napster-Aimster-Grokster trilogy does not appear to have derailed technological innovation in the peer-to-peer field.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125289666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Thought for Food: A New Dataset on Innovation for Agricultural Use","authors":"Daniel K. N. Johnson, Christopher Ryan Hughes","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1416462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1416462","url":null,"abstract":"Agriculture, like many primary and service sectors, is a frequent recipient of innovation intended for its use, even if those innovations originate in industrial sectors. The challenge has been identifying them from patent data, which are recorded for administrative purposes using the International Patent Classification (IPC) system. We reprogram a well-tested tool, the OECD Technology Concordance (OTC), to identify 16 million patents granted between 1975 and 2006 worldwide which have potential application in agriculture. This paper presents the methodology of that dataset’s construction, introduces the data via summaries by nation and industrial sector over time, and suggests some potential avenues for future exploration of empirical issues using these data.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123899130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPs Agreement","authors":"Peter K. Yu","doi":"10.4337/9781849806596.00011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806596.00011","url":null,"abstract":"The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which established the minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights for WTO members, remains one of the more controversial international intellectual property agreements that have entered into force. Although that Agreement embraces a highly problematic super-size-fits-all approach, it includes a number of safeguards and flexibilities to facilitate economic development and to protect the public interest. Articles 7 and 8, in particular, lay out explicit and important objectives and principles that can play important roles in the interpretation and implementation of the Agreement. Presented at the 2009 Santa Fe Conference, this article begins by tracing the origins and development of Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPs Agreement. It then examines the normative content of these provisions while highlighting the interpretations made by WTO panels and the Appellate Body as well as the implications of the two Doha declarations. The article concludes by exploring five different ways in which Articles 7 and 8 can be used to facilitate a more flexible interpretation and implementation of the TRIPs Agreement: (1) as a guiding light for interpretation and implementation; (2) as a shield against aggressive demands for increased intellectual property protection; (3) as a sword to challenge provisions that overprotect intellectual property rights or tolerate their abuse; (4) as a bridge to connect the TRIPS regime with other intellectual property or related international regimes; and (5) as a seed for the development of future international intellectual property norms.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130899507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Leading the Listener Mutiny to Redeem the Pirate Scourge: An Account of the Dire Straits of the Recording Industry","authors":"K. Snyder","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1399970","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1399970","url":null,"abstract":"In the interest of promoting the Progress of the musical arts, this paper proposes three options for the salvation of the recording industry as it lies bleeding under the sword of technological advancement. The first and least likely treatment lies in the hands of the Circuit Courts: resolve the disparate jurisprudence concerning the culpability of file-sharers for copyright infringement. The second and least developed treatment lies in the Aisle: reform the limitations on exclusive rights in the Copyright Act to clarify which common listener behaviors are impermissibly injurious to the Progress of the musical arts and which are fair and proper interactions with musical culture. The third and most viable solution lies in the inept hands of the music industry: lower prices of legitimate music files drastically by embracing new music production, social networking, and P2P distribution technologies, and greatly increase the transparency of the compensation channel from listener/consumer to recording artist.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125924751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intellectual Property, Innovation and Development: The Access to Knowledge Approach","authors":"Lea Shaver","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1437274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1437274","url":null,"abstract":"Public discourse on IP often fails to ask the fundamental question: What is the purpose of intellectual property? The premise of this work is that intellectual property law exists to promote innovation and human development. First and foremost, IP policy must be judged by how well it advances - or frustrates - these goals. This introduction to the volume Access to Knowledge in Brazil: New Research on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Development offers an introduction to this approach to evaluating IP law.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126145477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does it Matter Who Has the Right to Patent: First-to-Invent or First-to-File? Lessons from Canada","authors":"S. Lo, Dhanoos Sutthiphisal","doi":"10.3386/W14926","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W14926","url":null,"abstract":"A switch to a first-to-file patent regime from its first-to-invent system has become imminent for the U.S. To learn about probable effects of such a policy change, we examine a similar switch that occurred in Canada in 1989. We find that the switch failed to stimulate Canadian R&D efforts. Nor did it have any effects on overall patenting. However, the reforms had a small adverse effect on domestic-oriented industries and skewed the ownership structure of patented inventions towards large corporations, away from independent inventors and small businesses. These findings challenge the merits of adopting a first-to-file patent regime.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127053999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Physiological Steps Doctrine","authors":"A. Torrance","doi":"10.15779/Z38PQ5Z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38PQ5Z","url":null,"abstract":"In vivo conversion is a process, often metabolic in nature, wherein one substance, usually a chemical compound, is altered significantly by physiological pathways in the body into one or more different substances. For example, when a patient ingests a therapeutic drug, that drug is often converted by the natural physiology of the digestive system into one or more chemically different metabolites. The end products of in vivo conversion sometimes possess therapeutic efficacy. Many patent applications have claimed such therapeutic metabolites, either as compositions per se or as parts of methods of treatment. Although the USPTO has granted patent claims to such products generated by in vivo conversion of ingested drugs, and courts have noted the eligibility of such products as patentable subject matter, never has a United States court of final appeal upheld such a patent claim as valid, enforceable, and infringed. The unanimity of results in cases involving patent infringement triggered by in vivo conversion is striking. In fact, its very improbability suggests a common underlying explanation for why in vivo conversion does not ever seem to trigger patent infringement. Explanations based on inherency or a lack of evidence provide a satisfactory explanation for only a minority of in vivo cases. The Physiological Steps Doctrine, which suggests that products and processes of in vivo conversion are unpatentable subject matter under U.S. patent law, offers an explanation that spans all in vivo conversion cases. Though the rationales offered to explain the results in a number of in vivo conversion cases are suggestive, there are several advantages for a more explicit recognition of the Physiological Steps Doctrine. Consistent with much international, European, and U.S. patent law, the Physiological Steps Doctrine provides a theoretical underpinning to explain the results in cases involving products and processes of in vivo conversion. This theoretical underpinning not only has explanatory power for interpreting previous case law but is also useful in predicting the outcome of future in vivo conversion cases. In addition, the Physiological Steps Doctrine increases the understanding of where inventions involving human beings, and the biological products and processes thereof, fit within the spectrum of patentable subject matter.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124562303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}