IP Research Colloquium
Syllabus
Professor Field --- Fall 1999
I. Enrollment
Open to any graduate or J.D. student with some IP background. Up to 21 students may enroll. If the course is oversubscribed, preference will be given to those with the strongest IP background and commitment to research and writing.
II. Objective
To generate publishable IP research papers.
Reasonably focused topics must be selected before the end of the drop-add period. [See. VII, below.]
III. Materials
A. Fajans & Falk, Scholarly Writing for Law Students (1995) (read before classes begin); see also their paper, Comments Worth Making..., 46 J.L.Ed. 342 (1996) and Eugene Volokh, Writing a Student Article — on the web at <http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh /writing.htm>.
B. Blue Book (16th ed.)
C. Student outlines, rough drafts of papers and related background material.
D. Recommended (not required)
• USPQ subscription (at a very attractive price!)
• Squires, Rombauer & Kennedy, Legal Writing Nutshell (2d ed. 1996).
E. Listserv
The class will have an email list, and students should sign up.
IV. Methodology and logistical overview
See VI. below. A quarter of class meetings will cover research and writing topics to help participants go from focusing initial research, through drafting and organizing papers and follow-on research, to reorganizing and polishing papers.
Remaining classes will be devoted to presentations of research in progress.
Each participant will make two presentations.
Each student is required to provide written, anonymous feedback to his or her classmates. Students are also required to submit bi-weekly logs describing how course time was spent. (Logs are expected to show about 135 hours for the term.)
V. Evaluation
A. Attendance, timely work & participation . Anyone who flagrantly ignores attendance requirements will be “disenrolled.” Students must, at least one week in advance of presentations, distribute useful background material to classmates. The range of topics is expected to be large, but each participant will be expected to contribute to others’ progress.
B. Papers and presentations .
• Earlier presentations in a series are not expected to be as polished as later ones.
• An outline must be distributed a week before your first presentation, a rough draft a week before the second. Include some background information, e.g., statutes or cases, but keep it short!
• Final papers (15–25 pp.) must conform to usual style requirements and are due by the end of the examination period. (But more work will probably be needed before publication.)
C. Grades. O/S/U: 40% final paper; 60% presentations and participation.
VI. Schedule
[Tentative past class 8 — assumes full enrollment of 21 students. A revised schedule will issue after enrollment is set. ]
Class 1 Discuss syllabus; logistics; selection of topics, mentors and referees. (Faculty other than Field may be mentors.)
Class 2 Overview of FPLC IP library resources
Class 3 The possibilities for empirical research — declarations of topics due
Class 4 Declare general topics, discuss ways to focus and to generate a claim
Class 5 Con’d; finding a mentor or mentors (eventually referees)
Class 6 Advanced research strategies
Class 7 Getting citations right by using, e.g., the Bluebook.
Class 8 Further discussion of advanced research strategies
Cl. 9–15 First student presentations; three students per class session
Class 16 Further discussion of focusing effort and generating claims, finding referees
Class 17 Further address research, citation format... questions as warranted
Cl. 18–28 Second student presentations; two students per class session
VII. Possible Topics
1. Where would one find standards applicable to 15 U.S.C. § 43(a)(2) actions?
2. Copyright royalty arbitration panels since the CRT.
3. The strategic importance
of PTO options in the context of trademark litigation.
4. The strategic importance of proposed PTO options in the context of patent litigation.
5. The relationship between ITC proceedings and IP litigation.
6. The influence of decisions by regional courts of appeal on the CAFC.
7. Dealing with cyber-squatters.
8. Whether PTO FOIA requests should ultimately go to the CAFC.
9. The role of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in IP cases.
10. The significance of “private bills” for trademark owners.
11. The significance of “private bills” for other (see 10) IP owners.
12. Some implications of the limited fact-finding ability of trademark examiners.
13. The history of court review of PTO petitions.
14. The effect of “unlawful” commerce on trademark rights.
15. The possible role of the doctrine of “essential” parties in copyright fair use litigation.
16. Some aspect of the relationship between domain name registration and trademark law.
17. The potential liability of IP licensors in personal injury cases.
18. The need for PTO guidelines for the written description requirement.
19. When, if ever, should injunctions be denied to non-manufacturing patentees?
20. Is the copyright “merger” (of idea and expression) doctrine useful, needed?
21. How might one determine whether a patent claim is too broad as in O’Reilly?
22. When, if ever, can psychological tests (or, e.g., the LSAT) be protected by copyright?
23. Should copyright protection be denied for some state government works (or granted to some federal works)?
24. Can one be a “bona fide purchaser for value” of a trade secret?
25. When might “plagiarism” be actionable other than as copyright infringement?
26. When is a company liable for recruiting a competitor’s employees?
27. When is a company liable for recruiting a competitor’s customers?
28. When might a commercial product or service be regarded as a “public figure” for purposes of limiting liability for another’s disparaging statements?
29. What is the effect of the 11th Amendment on States’ liability for IP infringement?

IP Curriculum
Field's course page


Modified 8/21/99
URL: http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/iprcsyl.htm
© 1999 Franklin Pierce Law Center