The “process” of patenting: Why should we care about a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Doll?

In Bilski v. Doll, the U.S. Supreme Court is called to define one of the categories of patent-eligible subject matter, “process” patents. In 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the category has a narrow meaning, and that to be eligible for a process patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must involve a machine or apparatus or involve a transformation to a different state or thing, ultimately rejecting the patent application as unpatentable subject matter. The patent applicants have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to determine two issues: first, the meaning of “process” in 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the lower court properly relied on a “machine-or-transformation” test, and second, the test's potential conflict with 35 U.S.C. § 273, which provides protection for “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” The Court's decision could change the way that research and business are done, and patent protection for such investments. Parts 1 and 2 of this article address Bilski directly and what is and is not in dispute. Part 3 addresses the “machine-or-transformation” test, while Parts 4 and 5 address reasons not to adopt such a test.     

When Internet protocols and legal provisions collide: Unauthorised access and Sierra v. Ritz

This case note article examines the unreported decision of a U.S. court in Sierra Corporate Design Inc. v. David Ritz (2007) District Court, County of Cass, State of North Dakota (File No. op-05-C-01660) which deals with the unauthorised use of a domain name system zone transfer. The court ruled that access was unauthorized given the defendant's intention to obtain and divulge information found in the zone transfer.     

论法人的基本权利主体地位

美国宪法并没有规定公司是基本权利主体,美国联邦最高法院在很多判例中亦认定美国宪法的特权与豁免条款不适用于公司。宪法第14修正案通过后,尤其是自19世纪80年代以来,美国联邦最高法院逐渐将宪法的保护扩大适用于公司,使得公司成为某些宪法基本权利的主体。这一转变迎合了美国经济发展的需要,使得国内统一大市场的建立成为可能。本文借鉴美国的宪法实践,细致梳理了公司作为基本权利主体的相关理论。     

Case Baiting

In 2014, New Jersey passed the Sports Wagering Act, permitting sports betting at state casino and racetrack venues, in direct conflict with the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. In 2017, South Dakota passed Senate Bill 106, requiring that certain e-commerce retailers collect and remit sales tax, in violation of federal law. The two U.S. Supreme Court decisions arising from challenges to these state statutes—South Dakota v. Wayfair and Murphy v. NCAA—exemplify U.S. Supreme Court “case baiting.” Case baiting is a tactic states implement to challenge federal directives by passing state legislation that directly conflicts with federal law to lure the Court into granting certiorari and ruling in their favor. This article argues that South Dakota's and New Jersey's triumphs pave the way for other jurisdictions to pursue similar strategies across multiple legal issues such as abortion restrictions and immigration law. In addition, this article suggests that case baiting invites further scholarly exploration of important policy considerations, including the use of this tactic as a novel approach to the application of law and strategy, whether case baiting promotes the Court's progression toward a more quasi-legislative role, and whether passing conflict legislation violates state legislators’ oaths of office.     

平行进口和欧洲共同体条约第81条的关系

平行进口是欧洲法院面临的一个棘手问题 ,欧洲共同体各成员国国内知识产权立法上的差异导致商品自由流动出现障碍 ,知识产权人利用国内立法通过协议或采取统一行为限制知识产权产品进入特定的市场 ,保护自己的利益 ,减少商业风险 ,避免竞争 ,实际上分割了市场 ,导致了包含在商品中的权利用尽。商品必须处于自由流通的状态 ,任何阻碍商品自由流动 ,影响成员国贸易的行为都是违反欧洲共同体条约第 81条的反竞争行为     

后Bilski时代电子商务商业方法专利之因应与挑战

美国法院早期以商业方法属于数学演绎方法为由,将商业方法排除在专利保护之外.受此影响,商业方法在美国一直被认为不应授予专利.后来法院提出如果抽象的商业方法与运用这种方法后发生了某种物理转换或者有形的装置相联系,则应承认其具有可专利性.1998年更是表明只要该项发明能导出“实用、具体、有形之结果”者,仍不失其可专利性,否认了商业方法在美国《专利法》中存在例外.虽然联邦巡回上诉法院在In re Bilski案中,提出美国《专利法》第101条规定的方法发明须符合“机器或转换测试法”,试图限缩商业方法专利的范围,但联邦最高法院在 Bilski v.Kappos案中否认其为审查商业方法专利唯一的判断标准.在迄今为止仍存较大争议的背景下,如果既无技术贡献,亦无技术特征,更未与其实现所必须的计算机设备或计算程序相结合,而仅系解决商业经营的程序、步骤或者流程者,商业方法即应为人类智力活动的规则或方法,属于思想的范畴,而不属于专利权的保护客体.     

From Hyderabad to Harvard: how US law schools make it worthwhile to clerk on India's Supreme Court

Since the 1990s, judges of the Supreme Court of India have hired law clerks to help them perform some of their routine tasks. However, while clerkships on the U.S. Supreme Court are considered very prestigious and are extensively written about, clerkships on India's Supreme Court are considered to be of significantly lower value by the local legal profession and teaching market in India. Instead, ironically, clerkships on the Supreme Court of India are often pursued by students interested in getting an advanced law degree (usually an LL.M.) at a U.S. law school. Relying on interviews conducted with law clerks and interns who have served on the Supreme Court of India, and using India as a case study, this paper argues that ambitious Indian law students are adopting strategies to “Americanize” themselves in order to culturally arbitrage U.S. law schools' misunderstandings of the global legal profession.     

Ensuring an Inventor's Patent Rights: Recent Supreme Court Case Clarifies Timing of Application

Patent law encourages the development and transfer of technology by making the information regarding new inventions public knowledge, while providing the inventor with the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention for 20 years. Because the exclusive rights to the invention are limited in time, and to prevent the inventor from gaining additional time, the application for a patent must be filed within a statutorily prescribed time. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. clarified one aspect related to the timing of the patent application. This article specifically examines the Pfaff case and the question of when an invention subject to a contract to sell exists as it relates to the timing of patent applications.     

Confronting Religion: Veiled Witnesses,the Right to a Fair Trial and the Supreme Court of Canada's Judgment in R v N.S.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v N.S. is significant because the majority seems to endorse an understanding of confrontation that assumes a defendant's right to a fair trial is imperilled by a witness who seeks to give evidence while wearing the niqab. The case is of interest because it permits reflection upon the interrelationship between the right to a fair trial and the right to confront witnesses enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that the European Court of Human Rights conceptualises confrontation in epistemic terms, it is argued that it would be unlikely to find that a conviction based upon evidence from a niqab‐wearing witness would infringe the right to a fair trial. This note examines the value of demeanour evidence and whether the majority in R v N.S. was correct that the abrogation of the ability to assess demeanour evidence necessarily undermines trial fairness.     

Some reflections on the duality of regime for software protection in the European Union

Although the framework for protection of computer programs has been established in the European Union more than two decades ago, it has not undergone any major changes. Opinions of Advocate General Yves Bot have convinced the Court to advance the concept of the plurality of copyright regimes applicable to software: source code, object code and documentation would be protected under the Software Directive, whereas interfaces, programming languages, data formats and software manuals are dealt with as literary works under the InfoSoc Directive. In SAS Institute v WPL, the Court also ruled that copyright in a computer program cannot be infringed where the lawful acquirer of the license neither decompiled the object code nor copied the source code of the computer program, but merely studied, observed and tested that program in order to reproduce its functionality in a second program. This ruling paves the way and acknowledges the reverse engineering efforts on the Old Continent.     

CTS Corporation v. Waldburger: Tempest in a Teapot or the End of Toxic Torts As We Know It?

42 USC § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act imposes a “discovery rule” on state law actions for personal injuries and property damage caused or contributed to by exposure to a hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants. In CTS Corporation v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2181 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that section 9658 does not preempt statutes of repose, which establish absolute limits on the rights of plaintiffs to bring civil actions, notwithstanding any “discovery rule.” This article explores the potential impact of the Court's decision in Waldburger.     

Race-Based Peremptory Challenges: An Empirical Analysis of Litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002–2006

This paper examines race-based peremptory challenges. Such challenges occur during the voir dire jury selection process. The process allows both the defense and the prosecution to strike jurors who they believe will not decide cases fairly. However, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that race could not be used as a factor in eliminating prospective jurors. This paper examines federal litigation for five years in which it was alleged that race was used as a factor in removing a juror. An examination of the cases revealed that most of the cases involved sole male litigants who allege that there were multiple race-based peremptory challenges used in their cases. Moreover, most of the cases that led to the allegations involved violent offenses. Other case characteristics are noted, but of most significance was the finding that most appellants lost their cases. As such, the courts felt that most of the challenges were, in fact, race neutral. The implications of this research are discussed. This study was funded by an undergraduate research grant from Penn State University.     

The time limit on copyright: an unlikely tragedy of the intellectual commons

With their “tragedy of the commons” paradigm for intellectual property, Landes and Posner argue that the most important benefit of intellectual property rights is not that they generate incentives to create new works, but that they ensure the efficient exploitation of existing intellectual works. This alternative economic case for IP notably relies on the argument that allowing the copyright on certain massively popular works to expire could lead to their overexploitation, generating negative externalities similar to congestion externalities. This article will assess in detail the plausibility of this effect, by reviewing its most plausible interpretations: a boredom effect, a “blurring” or “tarnishment” effect, a snob effect, or a decrease in product diversity. I will argue that while Landes and Posner’s argument is ultimately inconclusive and unverified by the current state of empirical research, it also raises greater challenges than has usually been thought. Moreover, taking their argument seriously can also contribute to a better understanding of the purposes and limits of an intellectual property regime.     

Case comment: BSkyB v. EDS [2010] EWHC 86 (TCC) case no: HT-06-311 26.01.2010

The Technology and Construction Court has issued its long-awaited decision in the epic court battle between BSkyB and EDS. Mr Justice Ramsey found that EDS had fraudulently induced Sky into a £54 million contract for a new customer relationship management (CRM) system. Since judgment was given, EDS has been ordered to pay Sky £270 million in damages and interest.     

美国司法政治变迁的内在逻辑——从“罗伊案”说开去

美国的司法政治是司法与政治交互作用的产物。随着司法权的扩张,联邦最高法院突破"政治问题不审查"之传统,主动或被动地介入政治争议;随着政党对峙的尖锐,政治力量乐于将棘手的政治争议交由司法裁断;藉此,司法政治演变为常态政治,司法判例成为经久不衰的政治争点。自上个世纪70年代以来,围绕罗伊案半个多世纪的争议,不仅客观地暴露了美国司法政治发展的内在逻辑,而且也充分地展示出司法政治在美国的作用方式和涵摄空间。     

论《欧盟运行条约》第102条在知识产权领域的扩大适用——以阿斯利康公司诉欧盟委员会一案为视角

自由竞争和知识产权保护是现代国家建立和完善市场经济制度,保护消费者利益的两把利剑。以往判例所确立的原则是欧盟竞争法在特殊情形下被有限的适用于知识产权行使过程中的某些行为,竞争法的适用通常要满足非常严格的条件。而在新近作出的一份判决中,欧盟普通法院首次将《欧盟运行条约》第102条①适用于知识产权的申请行为,而且在适用过程中,明显放宽适用条件。这种在知识产权领域扩大适用竞争规则的行为有损知识产权法律体系的独立性,而且在今后类似案件中也不具有较强的可操作性,其仅具有特例性,而非普遍意义。     

Privacy rights in the classroom: Peer grading Supreme Court judgment 2002

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo that the practice of students grading each other's work and then calling out the marks does not violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 1974. The Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit). The judgment came in the case of a mother, Kristja Falvo, who objected to the practice of peer grading and recording in elementary schools. She felt that the practice was a violation of FERPA. Student grades, she argued, were an education record and should not be released to others in the class without a parent's permission. However, the Supreme Court ruled that such grades did not satisfy the definition of an 'education record' under FERPA. The judgment is significant. Teachers' organisations and bodies representing administrators welcomed the decision.     

Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof - ECJ decision creates further uncertainty about when e-businesses “direct activities” to a consumer’s state under the Brussels I Regulation

The European Court of Justice’s recent judgement in the joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09 will have substantial long-term implications for European e-businesses and e-consumers trading across borders.The key question considered was whether the fact that a website can be consulted on the Internet in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile is sufficient to justify a finding that commercial or professional activities are being directed to that Member State within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation.     

Software patents in the United States: A balanced approach

This paper tracks the interesting journey of software patents in the United States from both a historic and current standpoint. The U.S patent system has drifted from being strict in the 1970s to being fairly lenient in 1990s and now again strict since 2007. The revolutionizing and famous Bilski case that is redefining the boundaries of software patents is described, and the impact of this Court case on software patents is discussed. The challenges in issuing software patents in terms of proving novelty and non-obviousness are presented in an attempt to bring forward some of the questions in the software patent debate. The uniqueness of software as an invention is analyzed to understand why software should be considered differently compared to other industries. The advantages and disadvantages of software patents are discussed. The paper concludes by providing recommendations and proposing a balanced approach to software patents.     

Letters to the Editor

While many basked in the euphoric rays emanating from the New Jersey state court Mt. Laurel decision, commentators and litigators in the land use field were tempering their sentiments with the knowledge of the U.S. Supereme Court's impending consideration of a primary federal land use challenge in Warth v. Seldin. The Court's 5-4 decision, affirming a federal appeals court'ss affirmance of the dismissal of an exclusionary zoning challenge by various individuals and groups, was predicated on the elusive concept of “standing.” If a sufficient case or controversy existed, according to the Court, or if the various classes of plaintiffs alleged a sufficiently personal stake in the outcome of challenge, their right to challenge Penfield's zoning could be established. In Warth the majority took a restrictive view and, on a one by one basis, denied standing to each of the plaintiffs.