Quarterly Journal 50-3 Volume 50, Issue 3 September 2022

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.

This year marks the 50th Anniversary of the Quarterly Journal.  Watch for the special anniversary edition later this year.  Many thanks to our issue advertiser CAS!  We'd also like to thank our 125th Anniversary Sponsors.
QJ 50.3 - Marijuana and Patents: The Complicated Relationship Between Patent Rights and the Federal Criminalization of Marijuana

Reza Roghani Esfahani and Howard Bromberg


Despite being expressly protected by the U.S. Constitution, patent protection and enforcement for marijuana-related inventions is mired in many questions. These questions are a subset of the contradictions in the law of marijuana, where the federal government prohibits marijuana use and yet many of the states legalize, regulate, and tax it. In patent procurement context, these questions arise because of the interplay between marijuana prohibition as a Schedule I drug and the patentability requirements of the Patent Act. In patent enforcement context, these questions are the result of the federal judiciary’s responsibility to interpret and administer all federal laws—including the Controlled Substance Act, classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, and the Patent Act, demanding remedy for infringement of patents that necessarily advance illegal activity. This article examines the interface of some of the patentability requirements of the Patent Act with marijuana-related inventions. The article concludes that although marijuana-related inventions are likely patentable, criminalization of marijuana affects the quality of the granted patents. Further, this article identifies several issues that arise in enforcing a marijuana-related patent in federal court. These issues may include securing representation, dangers of self-incrimination, and identifying infringing parties. As a byproduct of these issues, this article concludes that the marijuana industry may be particularly vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits by Patent Assertion Entities.

QJ 50.3 - Tragedy of the Commons: Why the Supreme Court’s Literal Application of “Product of Nature” Rule in AMP v. Myriad Genetics Necessitates a Legislative Change to 35 U.S.C. § 101

Henry Loznev


The Supreme Court’s literal application of the “product of nature” rule in AMP v. Myriad Genetics necessitates a legislative change of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke, the founding fathers appreciated the importance of protecting property acquired through physical labor. In line with these ideals, the legislature established patent statutes that allowed the federal government to incentivize and reward innovation through patent grants. This original purpose, however, was thwarted when the Supreme Court expanded on the “product of nature” exception from the current iteration of the patent statute and declared gene patents invalid. This decision ignored the intricacies of genomic research and led to a rise in trade secret use that limits further research in the field. Furthermore, the decision can result in the diversion of funds from potentially life-saving research in the future. The legislature needs to address this issue by ensuring access to patents for innovators that discover new and useful applications of the products of nature. As a possible solution, this note proposes enabling USPTO with broad rule-making authority, akin to that given to the SEC, to retain the property law’s original spirit. Thus, USPTO would be able to recognize that different fields of technology with their unique research applications may necessitate different requirements for patent grants.
QJ 50.3 - Not So Natural Phenomena: A Look at § 101’s Impact on Biotech Patents

Jordan M. Cowger


This note seeks to address the uncertainty surrounding patent eligibility for DNA and DNA-derivative pharmaceuticals. Inconsistent judicial decisions and lack of action by the Supreme Court make this issue ripe for resolution. Due to the importance of DNA-derivative pharmaceuticals—not just to precision medicine but also to the United States’ position as a life science leader in the global economy—Congress must take action now. Following Europe’s approach, Congress should adopt a revised version of the draft Tillis-Coons STRONGER Patents Act, which includes an additional subsection to section 101 specifically calling for patent protection for DNA-derivative inventions.

QJ 50.3 - Technological Fault Lines: The Problems with Tailoring Patent Eligibility at the USPTO

Joshua A. Lopez


Many members of the patent community seek clarification of subject matter eligibility law, but administrative rulemaking would be a problematic approach. The Supreme Court has carved out what qualifies as a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - Inventions patentable. Although the Court has dealt with this statute in decades past, it began in 2012 to reinvigorate the rule that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patent eligible. Mayo, Myriad, and Alice mark the Court’s recent encounters with section 101. Respectively, these cases have heightened the patent standard for three major areas: diagnostic tools, genetics, and software. If Congress grants the USPTO rulemaking authority to clarify or enhance the eligibility standards, the agency’s rules would likely reflect a similar technological split. This is problematic because technological discrimination is prohibited under TRIPS Article 27, and divided USPTO rule makers could invite harmful divide-and-conquer influence. Legislators should work to make section 101 more fair and sensible, but they should delegate rulemaking authority with caution.

Knobbe Martens

Upcoming Events

  • AIPLA CLE Webinar: Damages 2023 Year-in-Review: Lessons and Litigation Strategies

    March 12, 2024 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM   |   Up to 90 Mins CLE

    This year’s panel of experts will leverage decades of deep litigation experience in patent- and other IP-related matters to provide webinar attendees with additional insight on recent cases from the perspectives of private practice litigators and testifying experts. In a conversational format, our panel will address issues of high importance from 2023’s most interesting IP damages cases. Among other topics, our panel will discuss recent developments in admissibility, apportionment, reliance on technical expert opinions, post-trial royalties, trade secret damages, and copyright statutory damages.
  • 2024 Trade Secret Summit

    March 14 to 15, 2024

    Registration is now Open! Please join the AIPLA Trade Secret Committee for the 2024 Trade Secret Summit, which is being held March 14-15, 2024 in Santa Clara, California. The AIPLA Trade Secret Summit is the leading trade secret conference in the nation, with speakers from across the spectrum of private practitioners, in-house counsel, government, and academia, as well as fantastic networking opportunities. Registration is now open!
  • 2024 Advanced Chemical Patent Practice Institute

    May 14 to 15, 2024

    This advanced course offers how the chemical/pharma patent practitioners can use fundamentally sound but oft overlooked principles to prepare and prosecute a United States chemical/pharma patent application to withstand both PTAB and district court challenges. The principles taught will greatly help those advanced chemical/pharma patent practitioners involved with prelitigation, portfolio management, litigation, Orange Book listings, Purple Book/BCPIA, regulatory practice, due diligence, health checks, and analysis of third-party patents for validity/patentability, infringement, and enforceability issues, as well as for preparing IPR and/or PGR petitions and defending the patent against them.
  • AIPLA 2024 Spring Meeting

    May 16 to 18, 2024

    Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2024 Spring meeting will take place in downtown Austin, at the Hilton Austin. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, May 15. Programming scheduled May 16-18.
  • AIPLA 2024 Annual Meeting

    October 24 to 26, 2024

    Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2024 Annual meeting will take place at the Gaylord National Harbor Resort. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, October 23. Programming scheduled October 24-26.