DOCSLIB.ORG

Opening Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opening Brief IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT _____________________________ TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC., EPISTAR CORPORATION, LITE-ON INC., LITE-ON SERVICE USA, INC., LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, LITE-ON TRADING USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants _____________________________ 2016-2576, -2577, -2578, -2579, -2580, -2581, -2582, -2591, -2592, -2593, -2594, -2595 _____________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:12-cv-11935-PBS, Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chief District Judge _____________________________ BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS EVERLIGHT AND LITE-ON _____________________________ Kevin K. Russell Thomas C. Goldstein Charles H. Davis GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. 7475 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 850 Bethesda, M.D. 20814 (202) 362-0636 Attorneys for Everlight and Lite-On Defendants-Appellants December 27, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Lite-On Inc., Lite-On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., and Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Lite-On Inc., Lite- On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., Lite-On Inc., Lite- On Service USA, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corp., Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. is a parent corporation that owns 10 percent or more of Everlight America’s, Inc.’s stock. Everlight Electronics, Co., Ltd. is publicly listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. Lite-On Technology Corp. is a parent corporation that owns 10 percent or more of Lite-On Inc., Lite-On Service USA, Inc., and Lite-On Trading USA, Inc. Lite-On Technology Corp. is publicly listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. 4. The names of all the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: Christopher S. Schultz, E. Robert Yoches, Jeffrey D. Smyth, Kenneth M. Frankel, MingTao Yang, Tina Hulse Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds, P.C.: Susan G.L. Glovsky, Lawrence P. Cogswell i Goldstein & Russell P.C.: Kevin K. Russell, Thomas C. Goldstein, Charles H. Davis. Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren, LLP: Richard C. Vasquez, Robert McArthur, Eric Benisek, Jeffrey T. Lindgren, Stephen C. Steinberg, III /s/ Kevin K. Russell Counsel for Defendant- Appellants December 27, 2016 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 11 I. The ’738 Patent Fails The Enablement Requirement of Section 112(a). ........... 11 A. The Specification Of The ’738 Patent Fails To Enable An Amorphous Buffer Layer. .................................................................................................. 12 1. As A Simple Matter Of Physics, Following The Specification Will Not Produce An Amorphous Buffer Layer. ............................................. 13 2. The District Court’s Contrary Reasons For Nonetheless Upholding The Patent’s Validity Are Meritless. ........................................................ 15 a. The Specification Does Not Suggest Skipping The Second Step. ...... 15 b. Following The Two-Step Process Does Not Create The Purely Amorphous Buffer Layer Claimed By The Patent. ............................. 18 c. Dr. Moustakas Did Not Testify It Was Possible To Grow An Amorphous Buffer Layer Following The Directions In The Specification. ....................................................................................... 20 B. The Specification Of The ’738 Patent Also Fails To Enable A Monocrystalline Growth Layer Directly On An Amorphous Buffer Layer. ............................................................................................................. 23 iii 1. The Patent Was Required To Enable A Monocrystalline Growth Layer Directly On Top Of An Amorphous Buffer Layer. ....................... 23 2. The Parties Agreed That It Is Impossible To Grow A Monocrystalline Growth Layer Directly On Top Of An Amorphous Buffer Layer With Epitaxy. .................................................. 27 3. BU’s Experts’ Conclusory Testimony That It Is Possible To Create The Claimed Device Is Insufficient To Show That The Patent Enabled Its Creation. ................................................................................ 28 4. The Patent Does Not Enable Anything Through Non-Epitaxial Methods. ................................................................................................... 30 II. The ’738 Patent Fails The Written Description Requirement of Section 112(a). .................................................................................................... 35 III. The District Court Erred In Construing The Claim Term “Grown On.” ........... 40 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 40 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................... 10, 24, 25 ALZA Corp. v. Andrx. Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 33 Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 37, 38 Application of Glass, 492 F.2d 1228 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 29 Application of Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................... 16 Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ......................................... 10, 35, 36, 39 Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 10 Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) ............................................................ 10 Enzo Biochem., Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 34 Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 34 In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 28 In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 24 v In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 24 Jennings v. Jones, 587 F.3d 430 (1st Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 10 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 14 LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp., 837 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 9 Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 24 LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 35, 36, 37 Mag Sil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 4, 14, 39 Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Med. Ctr. P’ship, 415 F.3d 162 (1st Cir. 2005) .................................................................................. 9 Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Licensing 101 December 3, 2020 Meet the Speakers
    Licensing 101 December 3, 2020 Meet The Speakers Sushil Iyer Adam Kessel Principal Principal fr.com | 2 Roadmap • High level, introductory discussion on IP licensing • Topics – Types of IP – Monetization strategies – Key parts of a license agreement – Certain considerations • Licensing software, especially open source software • Licensing pharmaceutical patents • Trademarks • Trade secrets • Know-how fr.com | 3 Types of IP Patents Trademarks Copyrights Know-how (including trade secrets) fr.com | 4 Monetization Strategies • IP licensing – focus of this presentation – IP owner (licensor) retains ownership and grants certain rights to licensee – IP licensee obtains the legal rights to practice the IP – Bundle of rights can range from all the rights that the IP owner possesses to a subset of the same • Sale – IP owner (assignor) transfers ownership to the purchaser (assignee) • Litigation – Enforcement, by IP owner, of IP rights against an infringer who impermissibly practices the IP owner’s rights – Damages determined by a Court fr.com | 5 What is an IP License? • Contract between IP owner (Licensor) and Licensee – Licensor’s offer – grant of Licensor’s rights in IP • Patents – right to sell products that embody claimed inventions of Licensor’s US patents • Trademarks – right to use Licensor’s US marks on products or when selling products • Copyright – right to use and/or make derivative works of Licensor’s copyrighted work • Trade Secret – right to use and obligation to maintain Licensor’s trade secret – Licensee’s consideration – compensation
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating the Lessor's Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math
    LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources Volume 6 Issue 1 Fall 2017 3-23-2018 Calculating The Lessor's Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math Patrick S. Ottinger Repository Citation Patrick S. Ottinger, Calculating The Lessor's Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math, 6 LSU J. of Energy L. & Resources (2018) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol6/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Calculating The Lessor’s Royalty Payment: Much More Than Mere Math Patrick S. Ottinger* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction...................................................................................... 3 A. Preface ...................................................................................... 3 B. Basic Formula for the Calculation of the Lessor’s Royalty Payment ..................................................................................... 5 C. The Lessee’s Duty to Pay Royalty, and the Time for Payment ...................................................................... 6 D. Obtaining Information in Support of the Royalty Payment....... 7 1. The Check Stub................................................................... 8 2. Sophisticated Lease........................................................... 10 3. Online Data ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Converting Royalty Payment Structures for Patent Licenses
    THE C RITERION J OURNAL ON I NNOVAT I ON Vol. 1 E E E 2016 Converting Royalty Payment Structures for Patent Licenses J. Gregory Sidak* The parties to a patent-licensing agreement may choose from a variety of royalty structures to determine the royalty payment that the licensee owes the patent holder for using its patents. Three common structures of a royalty payment are (1) an ad valorem royalty rate, (2) a per-unit royalty, and (3) a lump-sum royalty. A royalty payment for a license might use a single royalty structure or a combination of these three structures. Converting a royalty payment with one structure into an equivalent payment with another structure enables one to compare royalty payments across different licensing agreements. For example, in patent-infringement litigation, an economic expert can estimate damages for the patent in suit by examining royalties of comparable licenses—that is, licenses that cover a similar technology and are executed under circumstances that are sufficiently comparable to those of the hypothetical license in question.1 However, licenses for a single patented technology might specify the royalty payment using different structures. One license might specifya per-unit royalty, a second might specify a lump-sum royalty, and a third might combine a lump-sum payment with a royalty rate. To analyze and compare the differ- ent royalty payments of those licenses, an economic expert or court must convert the royalties to a common structure. For example, a question related to the conversion of the royalty structure arose in August 2016 in Trustees of Boston University v.
    [Show full text]
  • Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 27 Volume XXVII Number 1 Article 1 2016 Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Eli Greenbaum Yigal Arnon & Co., [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Eli Greenbaum, Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty, 27 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol27/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Cover Page Footnote Partner, Yigal Arnon & Co. J.D., Yale Law School; M.S., Columbia University. This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol27/iss1/1 Puzzles of the Zero-Rate Royalty Eli Greenbaum* Patentees increasingly exploit their intellectual property rights through royalty-free licensing arrangements. Even though patentees us- ing such frameworks forfeit their right to trade patents for monetary gain, royalty-free arrangements can be used to pursue other significant commercial and collaborative interests. This Article argues that modern royalty-free structures generate tension between various otherwise well- accepted doctrines of patent remedies law that were designed for more traditional licensing models.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusive Patent License Agreement Between Alliance and Company
    DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY EXCLUSIVE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT Between Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC And [COMPANY NAME] This License Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”), which shall be effective on the date it is executed by the last Party to sign (the “Effective Date”) below, is between Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (hereinafter "Alliance"), Management and Operating Contractor for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (hereinafter “NREL”) located at 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80401 and [COMPANY NAME], (hereinafter "Licensee"), a for- profit company organized and existing under the laws of the State of [NAME of STATE] and having a principal place of business at [COMPANY ADDRESS], hereinafter referred to individually as “Party” and jointly as “Parties”. BACKGROUND: Alliance manages and operates NREL under authority of its Prime Contract No. DE-AC36- 08GO28308 (hereinafter "Prime Contract") with the United States Government as represented by the Department of Energy (hereinafter "DOE"); Researchers at NREL have developed certain inventions pertaining to [Description of the technology], as part of their employment at NREL, and which were conceived or first reduced to practice in the performance of work at NREL under the above Prime Contract. Pursuant to the terms of the Prime Contract and existing laws of the United States, Alliance acquired rights in and to the patent rights covering such inventions; Licensee is a [TYPE of BUSINESS] business located in [NAME of STATE], and has worked closely with
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Policy Is Meant to Encourage and Enable Technology Development and Transfer for the Benefit of the Public
    Intellectual Property Policy 1 Contents A. General Comments ............................................................................................................. 3 B. Legal Considerations ........................................................................................................... 3 C. University Inventions and Works ........................................................................................ 4 C.1. Definitions .............................................................................................................. 4 C.2. University Rights to Inventions and Works ............................................................ 6 C.3. Research Financed by Outside Sponsors and Outside Consulting Arrangements ........................................................................................................ 8 C.4. Relationships between the Creator and the University Regarding Inventions ............................................................................................................... 8 C.5. Relationships between the Creator and the University Regarding University-Supported Works .................................................................................. 9 C.6. Distribution of Net Income from Works and Inventions ...................................... 10 D. Procedures Regarding Inventions and University Works .................................................. 12 D.1. Organization ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating the Tangled Web of Webcasting Royalties
    To make matters more complicated, Navigating the Tangled Web most recorded songs also have multiple copyright owners. Songwriters, compos- of Webcasting Royalties ers, and publishers of a musical composi- tion (a “song”) have rights in the song. BY CYDNEY A. TUNE AND CHRISTOPHER R. LOCKARD For example, these owners have the right to receive royalties every time a copy of the song is sold in sheet music form or ver since Napster launched to Services such as iTunes sell permanent as part of an album, as well as when the enormous popularity in 1999 and downloads and ringtones that consum- song is broadcast over the radio, the In- Edrew the ire of heavy metal band ers download to their computers and ternet, speakers in a restaurant, or when Metallica, the record industry has looked cell phones. Other companies, such as it is performed in a concert. Addition- at online music with a highly suspicious Amazon.com, sell physical phonorecords ally, artists who perform on a recorded and combative eye. The last decade has (like records and CDs). Music is also version of a song (a “sound recording”), seen record labels fight numerous Web contained in other online content, such and the owner of the copyrights in that sites and software makers that have fa- as podcasts, commercials, and videos car- sound recording (generally the record cilitated the distribution of online music ried on Web sites like YouTube. Finally, label), also have the right to receive and even individuals who simply shared thousands of Web sites, known as web- royalties for sales of that sound recording or downloaded music.
    [Show full text]
  • Royalty Sources That an Artist Is Technically Able to Benefit From
    ALL ABOUT SONGWRITING ROYALTIES Who collects and pays out to the songwriter? Money from record sales [mechanical royalties] is collected by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society- MCPS and is paid to the publisher, who pays this on to the songwriter. Money from radio and television plays [performing rights] is collected by the royalty organisations [like the Irish Music Rights Organisation - IMRO] which pay the songwriter directly. Money from record sales applicable to a songwriter who is also a recording artist [recording royalties] is paid by the record label to the artist. The amount receivable is stated in the recording contract between the artist and the record company and is usually based on a percentage of the wholesale price of the recording. There are four royalty sources that an artist is technically able to benefit from. The first royalty source is "artist" recording royalties. These are royalties due to an artist from record sales. Usually an artist can be offered anywhere between 10 to 20 royalty points depending on his/her credibility (Note 1). These royalties have nothing to do with songwriting. Recording royalties are amounts receivable by an artist for each recording sold (Note 2). The amount receivable is stated in the recording contract between the artist and the record company and is usually based on a percentage of the published dealer price of the recording (roughly equivalent to the wholesale price of the recording, not the retail price). The percentage is agreed at the time that the recording contract is being negotiated and usually provides for an increasing percentage as the level of sales increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Study 5: the Compulsory License Provisions of the U.S. Copyright
    86th CODgrMII} 1st 8eBaion CO~TTEE PB~ COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION 1 STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION PURSUANT TO S. Res. 53 STUDIES 5-6 5. The Compulsory License Provisions of the U.S. Copyright Law 6. The Economic Aspects of the Compulsory License .. Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary --f UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASIDNGTON : 1960 I , COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota I THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN L. McCLELLAN, ArkansllS ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming KENNETH B. KEATING, New York SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut PHILIP A. HART, Michigan SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming, Chairman OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin PHILIP A, HART, Michigan ROBERT L. WRIGHT, CAie! Coumel JOHN C. STEDMAN, Alloclate Coumd STEPHEN G. HUBER, C,lile! Cler"k 1 The late Honorable WllUam Langer, whUe a member_of this committee, dIed on Nov. 8, 1959. n , FOREWORD This is the second of a series of committee prints to be published by the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Trade­ marks, and Copyrights presenting studies prepared under the super­ vision of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress with a view to considering a general revision of the copyright law (title 17, United States Code).
    [Show full text]
  • Remuneration Guidelines for Non-Voluntary Use of a Patent Remuneration Guidelines for Non-Voluntary Use of a Patent on Medical Technologies
    REMUNERATION GUIDELINES FOR NON-VOLUNTARY USE OF A PATENT REMUNERATION GUIDELINES FOR NON-VOLUNTARY USE OF A PATENT ON MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES James Love Consumer Projects on Technology Washington D.C. Remuneration Guidelines for Non-Voluntary Use of a Patent on Medical Technologies WHO/TCM/2005.1 © World Health Organization All rights reserved The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization and the United Na- tions Development Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Development Pro- gramme in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions except- ed, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. The World Health Organization and the United Nations Development Programme do not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––3 Acknowledgements –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––4 Executive Summary –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––5 1. Introduction––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––9 2. WTO TRIPS provisions on remuneration for non-voluntary use of a patent ––––––––––––––––––10 3. Examples of Royalty Setting ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––15 4.
    [Show full text]
  • PATENT and COPYRIGHT POLICY the Texas State University System
    158 APPENDIX D. PATENT AND COPYRIGHT POLICY The Texas State University System 1. COPYRIGHT POLICY. 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE. The purpose of The Texas State University System copyright policy is to outline the respective rights which a component university and members of its faculty, staff and student body have in copyrightable materials created by them while affiliated with the component university. 1.2 GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT. Copyright is the ownership and control of the intellectual property in original works of authorship that is subject to copyright law. It is the policy of the Board of Regents that all rights in copyright shall remain with the creator of the work except as otherwise provided by Section 1.3 of this policy. 1.3 OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT. 1.3.1 The System and its component universities claim no ownership of fiction, popular nonfiction, poetry, music compositions or other works of artistic imagination that are not institutional works. If title to such works vests within a component university, the University, upon request and to the extent consistent with its legal obligations shall convey copyright to the creators of such works. 1.3.2 Copyright of a work commissioned by a component university shall be held by the University. 1.3.3 Copyright of a work made for hire (as defined by the Federal copyright law) shall be held by the University. 1.3.4 Copyright of all materials (including software) that are developed with the significant use of funds, space, equipment, or facilities administered by a component university, including but not limited to classroom and laboratory materials, but without any obligation by the component university to others in connection with such support, shall be held by the component university.
    [Show full text]
  • Licensee Beware: the Seventh Circuit Holds That a Patent License by Any Other Name Is Not the Same
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 2, Issue 2 Spring 2007 LICENSEE BEWARE: THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT A PATENT LICENSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS NOT THE SAME ∗ CAMERON R. SNEDDON Cite as: Cameron R. Sneddon, Licensee Beware: The Seventh Circuit Holds That a Patent License by Any Other Name Is Not the Same, 2 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 796 (2007), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v2-2/sneddon.pdf. INTRODUCTION Intellectual property licensing has grown significantly over the years with a global market estimated at more than $100 billion.1 In fact, “intellectual property assets account for 40% of the net value of all corporations in America.”2 Notwithstanding the likelihood of more and more licensing transactions, a complex area of the law, patent licensing has not received much attention in legal journals and scholarly publications.3 As companies increasingly license and cross- ∗ J.D. Candidate May 2007, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.S. Chemical Engineering, April 1999, Brigham Young University. Cameron R. Sneddon would like to thank his family, namely his wife Rachel and son Eric, for their unconditional love and support, and his parents, Roy and Kathleen Sneddon for their example of pursuing higher education and emphasizing the importance of scholarship. The author also wishes to thank Assistant Professor Tim L. Field for his many helpful comments and criticisms of previous drafts. Of course, any remaining errors or omissions belong to the author. 1 Kenneth L. Port, Jay Dratler, Jr., Faye M. Hammersley, Terence P. McElwee, Charles R. McManis & Barbara A. Wrigley, LICENSING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE INFORMATION AGE xvii (2d ed.
    [Show full text]