The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Review of Intellectual Property Law logo

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law (RIPL) is a student-run review devoted to the advancement of legal scholarship in the field of intellectual property. RIPL was founded in 2001 ^[1] by a group of students seeking to enhance the intellectual property program at The John Marshall Law School. RIPL comprises John Marshall’s top students, many of which are enrolled in the law school’s internationally recognized IP program. Many RIPL students possess a technical background--with degrees ranging from a bachelor of science to a Ph.D.--and have experience in patent, trademark, copyright, trade-secret, and antitrust law. RIPL’s issues are published four times each year and are available on LexisNexis, Westlaw, and the RIPL homepage. Notably, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cited RIPL as a source of persuasive authority.^[2]

1 Notable contributions
2 References
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Notable contributions

Justices - Supreme Court of the United States

John Paul Stevens, Section 43(A) of the Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction: The Beverly W. Pattishall Inaugural Lecture in Trademark Law, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 179 (2002).

Judges - United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Paul Redmond Michel, Founding a New Journal in the Age of Electronic Law, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2001).
Richard Linn, Effective Appellate Practice Before the Federal Circuit, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2002).

Judges – United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Richard Posner, Transaction Costs and Antitrust Concerns in the Licensing of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005).

Under Secretary and Director of the United States Patent Office

Q. Todd Dickinson, et al., The Genetic Age: Who Owns the Genome?, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 6 (2002) (symposium).

United States Registers of Copyrights

Mary Beth Peters, Copyright & Privacy - Through the Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005).
Ralph Oman, Copyright Piracy in China, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2006).

Treatise Authors

Donald Chisum, Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 336 (2005).
Robert L. Harmon, When a Patent Claim is Broader Than the Disclosure: The Federal Circuit's Game Has No Rules, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 21 (2001).

Professors

Harold Wegner, An Enzo White Paper: A New Judicial Standard for a Biotechnology “Written Description” Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 254 (2002).
Harold Wegner, Developments in Patent Law 2004, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2004).
Janice Mueller, "Interpretive Necromancy" or Prudent Patent Policy?: The Supreme Court’s “Arising Under” Blunder in Holmes Group v. Vornado, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 57 (2002).
Janice Mueller, Commentary: Willful Patent Infringement and the Federal Circuit's Pending En Banc Decision in Knorr-Bremse v. Dana Corp, 3 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 218 (2004).
Janice Mueller, At Sea in a Black Box: Charting a Clearer Course for Juries Through the Perilous Straits of Patent Invalidity, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 3 (2001).

Kenneth Port, On Red-Haired Waitresses, Shakespeare, and Product Configuration: A Response to Justice Stevens, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 218 (2002).
Graeme Dinwoodie, Some Remarks on the Limits of Harmonization, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 596 (2006).
Tyler Ochoa, Recent Developments in Copyright Law: Selected U.S. Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Court Opinions Between February 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 40 (2006).

[edit] References

^ John Marshall Law School web site, Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 2001. Consulted on February 20, 2007.
^ See, e.g., Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 42 Fed. Appx. 439, 452 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Harold C. Wegner, An Enzo White Paper: A New Judicial Standard for a Biotechnology “Written Description” Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 254, 263 (2002)).