The experimental use exception has recently come under attack by many who consider it too narrow. Much of this discontent with the doctrine has been spurred by a relatively recent Federal Circuit opinion, Madey v. Duke University, which makes clear that a research university does not receive immunity under the experimental use exception when its researchers engage in research or conduct experiments using patented inventions. To determine whether such a narrowing is proper, one must consider the overarching theoretical question about the tradeoff between protecting patentees' rights and maintaining incentives to innovate. In the context of the experimental use exception, this Article posits that a narrow experimental use exception strengthens incentives to invent and innovate, while a broad experimental use exception would provide disincentives to invest in patenting and innovation. This is especially so given the nature of modern university research and existing patent-licensing practices. Part I of this Article provides background on the experimental use exception. Part II discusses the Bayh-Dole Act, its alteration of the landscape of university research, and its impact on university patenting activity. Part III explains why, in reality, university research will survive a narrow experimental use exception. Finally, Part IV discusses why the experimental use exception is appropriately narrow and proposes a test that ought to guide Congress in deciding when legislative broadening is necessary.
As the knowledge economy expanded and concerns about trade secret misappropriation mounted in the digital age, federal policymakers undertook efforts...
In 2018 the U.S. government announced that Chinese espionage was occurring in university research labs, and the Department of Justice subsequently...
The 2022 edition of Selected Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Law Statutes, Regulations, and Treaties, edited by Professors Sharon K...
Obtaining or resisting some form of equitable relief is a key component of many trade secret disputes, both at an early stage and following trial on...
This chapter analyzes the extraterritorial provision in the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and considers the arguments on both sides of the question...
The 2021 edition of this annual volume marks a transition from Roger Schechter’s longtime editorship of Selected Intellectual Property and Unfair...
This is the third edition of the first casebook in the United States devoted exclusively to trade secret law. As with previous editions, it is...
TOTM Symposium: Retrospective on Ajit Pai's Tenure as FCC Chairman. The following is part of a digital symposium by TOTM guests and authors on the...
This Article presents the first qualitative empirical review of permanent injunctions in trade secret cases. In addition, it explores the extent to...
The Supreme Court’s decision in Merrill v. Yeomans is widely and correctly viewed as a watershed case in which the Court first announced that the...
A simple observation started us off in writing Right on Time. Studying and teaching intellectual property law, we noticed striking parallels between...
Most people assume, if implicitly, that there is a substantial element of uniformity in our IP system. At first blush, our copyright and patent laws...
This Article analyzes the extraterritorial provision in the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and considers the arguments on both sides of the question...
How should we allocate property rights in unowned tangible and intangible resources? This Article develops a model of original acquisition that draws...
As we enter the second year post enactment of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, this Paper presents a snapshot of developments to assess whether...