Instructor: David Novick
Time: 4:30-5:50 p.m., Tuesdays and Thursdays
Room: LART 208
Textbook: Loren & Miller, Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials (ver. 3.1, 2013). This required text is available only at http://www.semaphorepress.com/IntellectualPropertyLaw_overview.html. Semaphore Press uses a publishing model different from the traditional law school casebook publishers. I encourage you to read about Semaphore Press's publishing approach on its Web site. This book has a suggested price of $30, which is much lower than the $165 for the text from traditional publishers in previous semesters. I urge you to pay the suggested retail price in order to keep high-quality legal educational material available at reasonable prices. Important: Bring the book to class on your laptop.
Details: Syllabus, Course Outline
This course introduces students to intellectual property law, with particular attention to topics of interest for the fields of engineering and computing. Students will gain basic skills in critical thinking, reading, understanding and explaining statutes and cases relating to intellectual property. Most of the course is taught using law-school methods. Cool features:
- Projects working with real inventions, where the inventors will rely on the projects' results
- Moot-court appelate arguments, with experienced attorneys as judges
- Lots of classroom interaction, building critical-thinking skills
You can find a useful introduction on how to read and brief cases at http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/briefing.html.
- Appellate moot court final assignment:
- Hamilton-Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.: Andrea and Tiffany for Plaintiff-Appellant Hamilton-Beach; Maria and Jacob for Defendant-Appellee Sunbeam
- Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.: Salah and Jacqueline for Defendant-Appellant Nautilus; Rebeca and Edzel for Plaintiff-Appellee Biosig
- CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation: Monica and Mathew for Plaintiff-Appellant Alice; Crystal and Cristina for Defendant-Appellee CLS
- Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network: Alex and Trina for Plaintiff-Appellant Fox; Melissa and Ganesis for Defendant-Appellee Dish
- WNET Thirteen v. Aero, Inc.: Carlos and Kyle for Plaintiff-Appellant WNET; Angel and Ramon for Defendant-Appellee Aero Apple v. Samsung: Daniel and Mike for Defendant-Appellant Samsung; Carlos M. and Juan for Plaintiff-Appellee Apple
- November 19: Prepare pp. 459-487) (Sony Corp. of America
v. Universal City Studios, Inc., American Geophysical Union
v. Texaco, Inc.; Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc.). Appellate argument teams:
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.: Alex and Kyle for Sony, Rebeca and Daniel for Universal
- American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.: Carlos M. and Melissa for AGU, Crystal and Juan for Texaco
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc.: Carlos L. and Juan for Perfect 10, Jacqueline and Ganesis for Amazon
- November 14: Prepare pp. 437-459 and Berlin
v. E.C. Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 541 (1964), and Maxtone-Graham
v. Burtchaell, 803 F. 2d 1253 (1986). Appellate argument teams:
- Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell: Trina and Salah for Maxtone, Andrea and Carlos L. for Burtchael
- Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.: Jacob and Michael for Berlin, Monica and Jacqueline for EC Publications
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.: Angel and Tiffany for Campbell, Edzel and Cristina for Acuff-Rose
- Harper & Row, Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises: Ramon and Maria for Harper & Row, Mathew and Ganesis for Nation
- November 12: Prepare pp. 409-436 (Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., In re Application of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) and Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (1977)
- November 7: Prepare pp. 360-382 (Baker v. Selden; Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co.; Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.)
- November 5: Prepare pp. 345-360 (Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.; Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.)
- October 29: Prepare 238-254. Appellate argument teams:
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (Trina and Mathew for defendant-appellant, Angel and Alexis for plaintiff-appellee)
- Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (Jacqueline and Andrea for defendant-appellant, Kyle and Juan for plaintiff-appellee)
- In re Clay (Monica and Carlos L. for petitioner-appellant, Melissa and Ramon for USPTO-appellee)
- October 24: Prepare pp. 231-238. Guides and appellate argument
- Background on Section 103: Guided by Carlos M., Ganesis, Michael, Rebeca, and Jacob
- Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation, 314 U.S. 84 (1941): Edzel and Tiffany for defendant-appellant, Cristina and Crystal for plaintiff-appellee
- In re: Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (2004): Antonio and Daniel for petitioner-appellant, Maria and Salah for uspto-appellee
- October 22: Prepare pp. 213-231 (W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.; Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.; General Motors Corp. v. General Elec. Co.).
- October 17: Prepare pp. 196-217 (Section 102, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, In re Klopfenstein, Beachcombers v. Wildewood Creative Prods.). Note: A quiz question will ask you to write down 35 USC 102 (a) (1).
- October 3: Prepare Ex parte Murphy et al., 200 USPQ 801 (1977)
(hard-copy handed out in class) and pp. 186-196. Appellate
- Ex parte Murphy et al. (Ramon for respondent-appellant Murphy, Juan for USPTO-appellee)
- Brenner v. Manson (Andrea and Carlos M. for USPTO-appellant Brenner, Salah and Melissa for plaintiff-appellee Manson)
- Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc. (Jacqueline and Mike for plaintiff-appellant Juicy Whip, Carlos L. and Tiffany for defendant-appellee Orange Bang)
- October 1: Prepare pp. 157-186. Appellate argument teams:
- Diamond v. Diehr (Jacob and Ashley for USPTO-appellant Diamond; Rebeca and Maria for respondent-appellee Diehr;)
- Bilski v. Kappos (Alex and Antonio for petitioner-appellant Bilski; Monica and Trina for USPTO-appellee Kappos)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. (Edzel and Cristina for defendant-appellant Mayo Collaborative Servs.; Mathew and Ganesis for respondent-appellee Prometheus Labs., Inc.)
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Daniel and Kyle for petitioner-appellant Association for Molecular Pathology; Crystal and Jacqueline for respondent-appellee Myriad Genetics, Inc.)
- September 26: Prepare pp. 149-157 (Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs.) and Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). There's a take-home quiz due Thursday at the start of class. Keep a copy for yourself for use in class!
- September 24: Prepare pp. 129-149 (Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC; Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.; Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc.). Note: A quiz question will ask what are the two competing concerns in claim construction.
- September 19: Prepare pp. 117-129. Note: A quiz question will ask you to write down the Progress Clause of the U.S. Constitution (what most people call the Patent Clause).
- September 17: Prepare pp. 82-95 (PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond; Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Systems), plus Group One, Ltd., v. Hallmark Cards, Incorporated and Hisel v. Chrysler Corp.
- September 12: Prepare pp. 64-80; appellate argument teams:
- Stampede Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. May (Edzel and Ganesis for defendant-appellant; Mathew and Daniel for plaintiff-appellee)
- Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l v. Holden Found. Seeds, Inc. (Crystal and Jacqueline for defendant-appellant; Carlos L. and Melissa for plaintiff-appellee)
- DVD Copy Control Ass’n v. Bunner (Angel and Juan for defendant-appellant; Carlos M., Ramon, and Kyle for plaintiff-appellee)
- September 10: Prepare pp. 50-64; appellate argument teams:
- E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher (Salah and Maria for defendant-appellant Christopher; Andrea and Ashley for plaintiff-appellee duPont)
- Omega Optical, Inc. v. Chroma Technology (Rebeca and Trina for plaintiff-appellant Omega Optical; Jacob and Antonio for defendant-appellee Chroma Technology)
- Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp. (Monica and Tiffany for plaintiff-appellant Silvaco; Alexis and Cristina for defendant-appellee Intel)
- September 5: Prepare pp. 39-49 (Cemen Tech Inc. v. Three D Industries, L.L.C.; Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc.). Note: A question on the quiz will ask what the court is in the Cemen Tech case.
- September 3: Prepare pp. 27-40 (Amoco Production Co. v. Laird; CDI Energy Services, Inc. v. West River Pumps, Inc.). Note: A question on the quiz will be to list something you didn’t understand in the reading.
- August 29: Prepare pp. 13-26 (NBA v. Motorola, and Barclays Capital v. Theflyonthewall.com). There will be a quiz at the start of each class. For example, questions for this assigment might include (a) in NBA v. Motorola, what was the information claimed to be misappropriated? and (b) in Barclays Capital v. Theflyonthewall.com, what was the main issue?
- August 27: Read pp. 1-5 of the text (Chapter 1: Introduction, sections A and B). This will be difficult reading, because it's intended for third-year law students. As you read, make notes about what you didn't understand; we'll address your questions in class. We'll also read one or more of the cases, but we'll do that together so it's not necessary to read the cases ahead of time this week. For following weeks, it is essential to read the cases ahead of time as they are assigned.