Law Review Case Note Topics for 2010-2011

Dear Law Review Editors: Please send me a note (dcrouch@patentlyo.com) to let me know about patent law focused articles that you publish in your journal so that I can highlight them on Patently-O.

Student Note Topics: Here are some suggestions for patent law focused law review topics for 2010-11 that I would like to see for my own edification. Please send me an e-mail if you choose one of these.

Dennis Crouch

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

12 thoughts on “Law Review Case Note Topics for 2010-2011

  1. I favor whatever you folks tend to be up too. These kinds of clever work as well as credit reporting! Keep up the superb operates folks I’ve designed people folks for you to my blogroll. I think it’ll help the price involving my site: ). Nehru jacket

  2. The note: Expand 102(e)? Published Applications?

    Giacomini dicta stated that the only provisional subject matter that is prior art is that claimed in the patent. This statement was shocking, and portends a signficant departure from accepted thinking on 102(e) to the extent the Feds might extend its 119(e) dicta and apply it to 120 and 121. Under long accepted law, the whole contents of patent is prior art, effective as of its earliest disclosure date in a prior US application for which a benefit is claimed. Whether it is claimed or not is irrelevant.

    How this thinking applies to published applications has yet to be sorted out.

  3. Sounds cool. How did you get the raw data? How did you generate the graphics?and waiting for your comment,and now pls come to my website and see my products ahout ari yeezy shoes,you will like them,come on!

  4. ping – I didn’t see the FR item you mentioned regarding the 24 mo. provisional on the patent related notices page of the USPTO. Can you post a link?

    Thanks

  5. I’m confused. How was the scope of 102(e) really expanded from what almost everyone thought it was, the provisional filing date, when the original U.S. filing date is a provisional? Isn’t the application publication date supposed to be the same 18 months later as if the original application was a formal application? {Of course it’s only prior art for that date as to the provisional’s contents, which may not be entirely the same as the utility application filed a year or less after the provisional.}

  6. The case is important because of the large number of provisional patent applications being filed each year.

    Big D – any effects on the Federal Register item today conecnering the “24 month Provisional”?

    Kudos to my pal Hal.

  7. Dennis, any topics you would like to see articles on (in non-law review publications), especially topics which would be of interest to patent prosecutors; that is, topics which would help us better prepare and prosecute patent applications?

Comments are closed.