|
 |
PUBLICATIONS
| Cite as: J. High Tech. L. |
| Marshall Leaffer |
| In areas of science such as biotechnology and digital technologies, where innovation is often evolutionary, incremental, and collaborative, overlapping patents and threats of litigation impede innovation. In this article, Leaffer suggests that, while overarching patent reform is critical, the courts should reconsider the doctrine of patent misuse to invalidate inefficient restrictions through which patent holders earn rewards that are incommensurate with the patent grant and suppress technological progress. |
|
| Roberto Mazzoleni |
| Mazzoleni seeks to address the critical events in the years leading up to the formulation and enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed institutions to maintain exclusive rights to license inventions resulting from federally funded research. Based on his findings, Mazzoleni concludes pharmaceutical firms do not rely on the Act’s exclusive licensing as an incentive to engage with federally funded institutions. Rather, they find the information generated from the federally funded research useful in planning their own research and development. |
|
| Katelyn J. Bernier |
| Substantial investment is often a prerequisite for the development of a new drug. Solid patent protection, therefore, is necessary to help pharmaceutical companies recoup their investments as the value of the compound is usually equal to the value of its patent. The steady influx of challenges to the validity of pharmaceutical patents has, however, threatened to amplify their overall vulnerability. Bernier argues that despite the increase in challenges to their validity, such patents have not been devalued, but rather have been strengthened following the refocusing of the obviousness analysis. Additionally, Bernier addresses the use of inequitable conduct claims and cautions that with the varying application of the intent requirement, there is a need to reiterate a clarified standard. |
|
| Erin I. Kunze |
| The Internet, and ease of communication and commercial transactions it offers, has increasingly facilitated the trafficking of women and children around the globe. At the same time, the borderless nature of the Internet allows criminals to exploit women and children from around the world, without regard to domestic law or domestic law enforcement. Kunze argues that international Internet regulation is necessary to fully achieve the goals of the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, and to achieve the goals of countries including the United States, Canada and Australia in reducing, preventing, and prosecuting those who sexually exploit women and children with the aid of computer systems. |
|
| Matthew Mastromauro |
| The invention and eventual widespread use of new technology in the telephone and telegraph required new approaches to thinking about Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure issues. Widespread public proliferation and the ease of access to content presented on the internet and sites like YouTube may necessitate a similar change in thought relative to protecting a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment Fair trial rights. This note tracks historical development of the federal courts’ approach to controlling and reviewing pre-trial media coverage of a case in its jurisdiction to prevent such media from unfairly prejudicing the jury pool. The note examines the medium of YouTube as a means for the delivery of news coverage and the challenges it presents in pooling a jury that has not been prejudiced due to pre-trial coverage of the case, in the backdrop of a recent federal criminal trial where YouTube videos were presented in a defendant’s motion for change of venue. The note then offers some possible solutions based both in a more focused application of traditional tools such as voir dire, and in more hypothetical regulations of the site, following in the vein of the Digital Millennium Copyright act, in order to fully address the unique issues presented by YouTube in this area of the law. |
|
 |
|
