By: Michal Chudzik*
When the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union pushed through the Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (Directive 2009/24), everybody thought that the real purpose of the Act was the protection of the computer programs, and by implication, protection of the right holders. Only a few, if anyone, could predict otherwise. The surprise this time, as many times in the past, came from the chambers—this time mighty Grand Chamber—of the Court of Justice of the European Union (henceforth the “CJEU” or the “Court”), who, among other things, overlooked the rule of primacy of international agreements and managed to define “nothing” as a “copy.” Continue reading “MICROSOFT AND THE LIKES’ HEADACHE: IN THE WAKE OF THE SURPRISING JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU IN ITS 5TH ANNIVERSARY”
By: Tyler Train*
1. The Inception of Inter Partes Review
On September 16, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), drastically altering the patent law landscape. One of the most significant impacts of this new legislation was the change in post-grant patent validity challenge proceedings from inter partes reexamination (Reexamination) to inter partes review (IPR), which took effect on September 16, 2012. IPR was instituted “to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system.” Prior to the implementation of IPR, Reexamination was criticized and underutilized for its numerous shortcomings including, inter alia: prolonged timelines for each proceeding (lasting up to eight years with appeal); limiting the petitioner’s involvement in the process; and failing to attain decisive outcomes. As a result, Congress created a more time-sensitive and adjudicative proceeding in IPR to be held by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). A hallmark of this transition is that Congress transformed the post-grant proceeding “from an examinational to an adjudicative proceeding.” The changes affect the backdrop of virtually all patent disputes arising after 2012. This Article will provide an analysis of how IPR affects bargaining power in patent settlement negotiations.
Continue reading “INTER PARTES REVIEW: AN IP POWER SWITCH”
By: Evisa Kambellari*
In the virtual world, one person can present himself in different identities and several persons can present themselves under the same virtual identity. Online impersonation can occur in two ways: either by stealing one’s personal information to gain access to his online profile or by creating a completely fake profile. The fake profile might reveal information that belongs to someone else or be totally fictitious. Such flexibility in assuming one’s identity online is due to the anonymity that people enjoy in the online world. Inability to elaborate proper identification tools of Internet users is one of the biggest challenges in preventing and prosecuting social media related crimes. Online social networking has reshaped human interaction in a way that reduces the barriers that would traditionally keep strangers apart. Identification requirements are minimal and there is no proper mechanism of verifying the truthfulness of the information one presents in creating an online profile or e-mail account. However, creating a fake online profile is not a criminal act per se. The component that turns the lawful act into an unlawful act of online impersonation is the imposter’s malicious intent to “defraud,” obtain a “benefit,” or “injure”.
Continue reading “ONLINE IMPERSONATION: I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE V. YOU CAN’T MANDATE HOW I USE MY PRIVACY TOOLBOX”