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

  • CPM Webinar: Preventing Your Worst Tech Nightmare: Protecting Your Firm & Clients from Cybercriminals - The Right Way

    December 6, 2022 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM   |   No CLE

    No one likes to think about the worst happening, but when it comes to your firm's technology, it's always better to be safe than sorry. That's why we're here to present Preventing Your Worst Tech Nightmare: Protecting Your Firm & Clients from Cybercriminals - The Right Way, a course that will help you protect your business and clients from the perils of cybercrime. This course covers everything from cybersecurity myths that can cripple your business to attorneys' ethical obligations to be technically competent. You'll learn exactly how to secure your practice against cyberattacks, and we'll equip you with the leadership skills you need to create a security-first culture for your firm.
  • CPM Webinar: The EU Unified Patent Court is opening: To be in or to opt-out?

    December 7, 2022 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM   |   No CLE

    April 1st 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 the implications of the new system, how to opt-out, and some considerations in deciding whether to opt-out; and receive strategic tips for handling your European Patent portfolio.
  • 2022 Trade Secret Summit

    December 8 to 9, 2022   |   Up to 570 Minutes CLE

    Please join the AIPLA Trade Secret Committee for the 2022 Trade Secret Summit, which is being held December 8-9, 2022 in Miami, FL. 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.
  • muhammad-faiz-zulkeflee-alw-CwGFmwQ-unsplash-400 AIPLA Virtual Water Cooler - December Meetup

    December 21, 2022 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

    AIPLA’s Committee on the Profession is inviting you to join us around the virtual water cooler for a quick break. Drop in and catch up with colleagues old and new at this informal networking meetup. All are welcome.
  • 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