Review of Intellectual Property Law Blog

The Latest from RIPL: Issue 3 of Vol. 17 has been published

By Staff on Tuesday, March 13th, 2018
0 Flares 0 Flares ×

Dear Subscribers,

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law is proud to announce the publication of Issue 3 of Volume 17!  We are pleased to feature articles by Donald Dunner, Scott Locke, and Ashish Bharadwaj covering a wide range of topics: from examining the role of the Supreme Court in the Federal Circuit’s patent mission, the trademark disclaimer provision of the Lanham Act, to analyzing the contentious issue of injunctive relief as a remedy for infringement of standard essential patents under FRAND licensing terms. Also included is a student comment by Danielle Mobley proposing that the subconscious copying doctrine needs to be extended to political speech. Lastly, a compilation of interviews with several participating judges in the Northern District of Illinois’ Patent Pilot Program conducted by the RIPL Vol. 17 Executive Board.


The Supreme Court: A Help or a Hindrance to the Federal Circuit’s Mission?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 298 (2018)
Donald Dunner

The Trademark Disclaimer Provision of the Lanham Act: Is USPTO Flexibility Worth Litigant Ambiguity?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 305 (2018)
Scott Locke

Failure is Not Falling Down But Refusing to Get Up: Implication of Huawei/ZTE Framework (CJEU 2015) in Europe, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 326 (2018)
Ashish Bharadwaj



Deja Vu or Copyright Infringement? Why Melania Trump Infringed on Michelle Obama’s Copyrighted Speech Through Subconscious Copying, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 360 (2018)
Danielle Mobley

Patent Pilot Program Perspectives: Patent Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 348 (2018)
RIPL Vol. 17 Executive Board

0 Flares Facebook 0 Twitter 0 0 Flares ×


  • giugnonolano

    George @49- You say: “Patent agents can accumulate experience with an extremely relevant type of litigation. They/we are allowed to practice before the PTAB in all of their proceedings. How many administrative trials have you engaged in representing either a patent owner or a challenger? Challengers certainly do not hire patent agents to represent them, they hire the best patent litigators they can pay. So no one filing petitions hires patent agents. So how many patent owners have hired you or any other patent agent? There is a difference between it being theoretically possible for a patent agent to engage in representation in a post grant administrative trial and it actually happening. I”ve never seen any patent agents involved, unless they were a member of a much larger team where the lead attorney and second attorney were actually attorneys. It would also be interesting to understand how a patent agent could become knowledgeable about the Rules of Evidence (which are extremely complex), and all the other things that go far beyond patent prosecution. So please, give us the examples.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *