Quarterly Journal 47-3 Volume 47, Issue 3 November 2019

Please sign in to view the articles. Once you've signed in please refresh the page to see the download link. 

The AIPLA Quarterly Journal, a publication of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, is housed at the George Washington University Law School and is edited and managed by an Editorial Board of intellectual property experts and a staff of law students under the direction of the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Joan Schaffner.

The Quarterly Journal is dedicated to presenting materials relating to intellectual property matters and is published four times per year. Editorial Board members (all of whom are lawyers) are selected based upon demonstrated interest and experience, and student staff members are selected from the students of the GWU Law School.

QJ-1-100 QJ 47.3 - Patent Eligibility of Inventions Directed to Graphical User Interfaces

Malgorzata Kulczycka

Patent Eligibility of Inventions Directed to Graphical User Interfaces

The 2019 Guidance provides some clarity for determining patent eligible subject matter under § 101. For example, it clarifies that to be patent eligible, a claim needs to state a new and practical application of an alleged abstract idea.

As the USPTO continues to apply the 2019 Revised Guidance, the number of rejections under § 101 issued in patent applications directed to graphical user interfaces should continue to decline.

This article discusses several recent patent cases in which the inventions were directed to graphical user interfaces. In each of those cases, an applicant would have had a chance to advance their arguments against the § 101 rejections by showing how the recited graphical user interface integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.

QJ-2-100 QJ 47.3 - The “Unwilling Licensee” in the Context of Standards Essential Patent Licensing Negotiations

Andre Schevciw

The “Unwilling Licensee” in the Context of Standards Essential Patent Licensing Negotiations

This article proposes a framework to determine whether an implementer of standards-essential patents (“SEPs”) is an “unwilling licensee” of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) licensing terms.

In recent years, scholars and courts have discussed extensively the potential for SEP holders to engage in “patent hold-up.” As a result, SEP holders are now mostly blocked from seeking injunctions, with a possible exception when the SEP implementer is an “unwilling licensee” of FRAND terms.

The SEP holder’s difficulty in seeking an injunction, the uncertainty in determining FRAND rates, and a lack of an agreed definition for “unwilling licensee” create the risk for the so-called “patent hold-out” problem. This article focuses on the “unwilling licensee” determination problem and proposes a framework based on a step-by-step, objective fact-based analysis. The framework aims to increase predictability for both SEP holders and SEP implementers.

QJ-3-100 QJ 47.3 - Artificial Human Life: Patentable, Playing God, Both?

Austin Grossfeld

Artificial Human Life: Patentable, Playing God, Both?

We as a species have been trying to learn how and why we do the things we do for hundreds of years. This curiosity resulted in scientists at the University of Cambridge making a revolutionary breakthrough by artificially creating an embryo in a laboratory setting.

However, with great discoveries come many questions. One of these questions is whether or not these scientists can patent their work. Attaining the answer to this question requires the analysis of decades of judicial, legislative, and agency decision-making.

This Note looks at the history of all three of these branches that factor into patent rights and requirements, while trying to narrow down the applicable precedent.

QJ-4-100 QJ 47.3 - Music to My Ears: Adding a Fair Use-Like Provision to the Anti-Bootlegging Statutes

Sean Hanlon

Music to My Ears: Adding a Fair Use-Like Provision to the Anti-Bootlegging Statutes

The federal anti-bootlegging statutes protect live musical performances from unauthorized use. The statutes were conceived in good faith, but have flaws and ambiguities that may impede their effectiveness. The main issues with the statutes are their conflicts with the First Amendment and Commerce Clause. While the statutes have survived challenges regarding the Commerce Clause, they remain vulnerable to First Amendment scrutiny because they lack a fair use exception.

This note delves into the existence and possible resolutions to these problems using social media and modern recording technology as possible bootlegging tools. It is imperative to make these changes as soon as possible considering the Beijing Audiovisual Treaty may further expand the copyright landscape to protect more forms of audiovisual works.

This Note suggests that the federal anti-bootlegging statutes be amended to add a fair use-like exception that may balance performers' rights with users' rights. In reaching this conclusion, this Note describes the digitization of recording technology, provides a comprehensive look into the anti-bootlegging statutes and their legislative history, and discusses copyright and anti-bootlegging cases addressing fair use and the First Amendment. Finally, this Note provides an example of how the anti-bootlegging statutes can be amended to prevent future problems.   

QJ-5-1 QJ 47.3 - Product Hopping Analysis: A More Beneficial Approach

Divesh Patel

Product Hopping Analysis: A More Beneficial Approach

Product hopping in the pharmaceutical industry has become more prevalent over recent years, and courts have had varying responses to address this behavior. By focusing on a traditional antitrust analysis for the pharmaceutical industry, which is not a well-functioning market, courts have reached inconsistent decisions that do not necessarily punish the market exploiter and reward the honest competitor.

This Note looks to the drug approval process in the European Union, specifically Germany, and proposes a new standard that focuses on additional clinical benefits. Although courts do not typically assess the value of parties’ innovations, the pharmaceutical field is unique in its relationship between competitors and consumer, and thus warrants a new approach to address these issues.

By focusing on the clinical benefits of new formulations, courts can better encourage valuable innovation by branded drug companies and protect the market from trivial advancements made solely for the purpose of excluding generic companies from the market.

Knobbe Martens

Upcoming Events

  • Rancho Bernardo Inn AIPLA 2023 Mid-Winter Institute

    January 31 to February 3, 2023

    The 2023 Mid-Winter Institute will look at the IP world through the lens of health, sport, and wellness technology. This lens will highlight ongoing challenges in patents, such as the scope of 35 U.S.C. §101. We will look at the intersection of Patents and Trademarks with case studies in the exercise system. We will review data protections through prisms made of telehealth and sports medicine. We will have all the usual information, but package it with practical perspectives that will help not only our professional world, but also our everyday lives. Rancho Bernardo Inn, San Diego, CA
  • 2023 Mid-Winter Institute

    January 31 to February 3, 2023

  • AIPLA CLE Webinar: Introduction to the UPC

    February 9, 2023 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM   |   Up to 90 CLE Minutes

    June 1, 2023 is the current target date for the EU Unified Patent Court (UPC) to open and begin receiving cases. The UPC will have parallel territorial jurisdiction with national patent courts for all existing European Patents unless the patent owners “opt-out” of UPC jurisdiction. Learn all about revocation and infringement actions before the UPC as well as the respective course of these proceedings and the efficient management thereof. This webinar covers the intricacies of the different proceedings and provides strategies from a plaintiff’s and a defendant’s perspective. To put you in a position to select the jurisdiction that suits your needs best, similarities and differences between selected national proceedings and proceedings before the UPC will be pointed out.
  • CPM Webinar: Creating and Running an Ethical IP Law Firm Part 2 – Creating Firm Entity and Ownership; Determining Fees; Handling Client Money; Getting Paid; Record-Keeping Requirements; and Insurance

    February 14, 2023 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM   |   No CLE

    Welcome to Part 2 of the Guide to creating and running an ethical IP Law Firm. This 90-minute webinar has something for those interested in starting their own practice as well as for those who may want to restructure or clean up an existing practice. Our two expert speakers will address a range of topics including the different types of organizational structures for law firms; who is allowed to own or partner in a law firm (answering questions for Patent Agents too!); common operational agreements; billing and determining your firm’s fees; trust account, record-keeping and banking practices; getting paid; and insurance considerations for your IP law firm.
  • AIPLA CLE Webinar: Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patents

    March 2, 2023 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM   |   Up to 90 CLE Minutes

    The Unitary Patent Court (UPC) will most likely enter into force in early 2023. That means that applicants and proprietors of European patent applications that have been granted European patents would need to determine their strategy for their European IP. If no action is taken, then the legal framework of the UPC will affect even the already granted EP patents. This webinar will discuss the effects of the UPC coming into force, as well as the options and decisions that the applicants and proprietors need to consider and implement.