My path to law school began with art. You might think that sentence sounds illogical, maybe even a bit absurd. And the truth is, I too once believed the misconception that art and law have nothing in common. But the fact that you are reading this right now is proof that is not true. I’ve since discovered that not only are there art lawyers, but that the field of intellectual property (IP) law is essential to the arts. Let me explain…
The answer to this question might seem obvious that public health—and especially protecting the public from the coronavirus pandemic—should always take precedent. But, a recent dispute before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois highlights a conflict that judges likely did not contemplate when entering General Orders to protect public health.
Although people do not normally associate patent law with baseball, many of the edge-of-your-seat moments and walk-off homers would not be around today if it were not for patented technology. Let’s take a look at how patents have allowed us to play ball! Continue reading “Major League Patents – How Patent Law Has Shaped America’s Pastime”
Griffen Thorne is an attorney in Harris Bricken’s Los Angeles office. Griffen’s practice includes 
intellectual property (IP) as well as transactional, data security, and regulatory matters. As a member of Harris Bricken’s cannabis team, Griffen works with cannabis and hemp clients. Prior to joining Harris Bricken, Griffen was an intellectual property litigator at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in Los Angeles. Griffen graduated from Loyola University of Chicago School of Law in 2015, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal and graduated magna cum laude.
Continue reading “Weeding Through IP Cannabis Law: An Interview with Griffen Thorne”
You might know that patents exist to incentivize innovation. In other words, the inventor who meets patent standards is given a period of market exclusivity (permitting the inventor to exclude others from various activities involving the patented invention) in exchange for publicly disclosing his/her invention. While this may be sufficient incentive for many technological areas, rare diseases pose a unique challenge.
Drug companies don’t generally target rare diseases. Why? A small patient population means that even if expensive research efforts are successful, there will not be a large return on investment. In 1983, the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) was passed with the intent to solve this problem. Has it worked? The answer to this question is more complicated than it may seem. Continue reading “Incentivizing Innovation in Rare Disease Research”
Jimmy Theo is an intellectual property lawyer in Dinsmore & Shohl LLP’s Chicago office. Jimmy’s 
practice focuses on trademark law—an area he studied at Loyola University of Chicago School of Law. Jimmy graduated from Loyola in 2015 where he was captain of the 2015 Civil Law Mock Trial Team, a liaison of the Copyright Society of the USA, and a research assistant for Professor Matthew Sag. Jimmy knew entering law school that Intellectual Property (IP) was for him. Well before law school, Jimmy was attracted to music and the arts. His interest in helping musicians and other artists protect their work led him to a career in IP, where among other practice areas, he currently advises on the management of global trademark portfolios.
Continue reading “Intellectual Property Strikes a Chord: An Interview with Jimmy Theo”
Christian Morgan is an associate attorney at Norvell IP, LLC in Chicago, Illinois. After graduating from University of Nebraska—Lincoln with high distinction in 2014, he came to Loyola University Chicago School of Law where he discovered a future in intellectual property law. Continue reading “Making the Most of Loyola’s Opportunities: How Christian Morgan (JD ’17) Found a Future in IP”
People will tell you all sorts of terrible things about law school: getting “cold called” by ruthless professors, competitive classmates who steal your notes, or insurmountable workloads that rule your life. While I’m only one and a half semesters in, I feel confident when I say that nothing could be further from the truth at Loyola University Chicago School of Law (“Loyola”). Continue reading “Law School at Loyola: Debunking the Myths and Encouraging New Pursuits”
On September 30, 2019, the California governor changed the playing field of college sports. California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, which permits college athletes to profit from the use of their name, image, or likeness. This essentially gives them the right to publicity. This post will explore the right to publicity and what this Act entails.
Continue reading “California College Athletes and Right to Publicity”
It’s a case with a humble beginning, just three Red Line stops south of Loyola’s Corboy Law Center, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. But this case also has the potential to effect major and much needed change in the realm of patent law. The Honorable John Z. Lee heard HP Inc. v. Berkheimer in 2016, and subsequently, the case worked its way through the appellate courts. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided if it will hear the case because for the last eleven months the Petition for Writ of Certiorari for Berkheimer was pending a submission of an amicus brief from the Solicitor General. The brief—which recommended that the Court deny the Berkheimer petition unless another case, Athena v. Mayo, is granted certiorari—was filed with the Court last week. This case could be one of the first patent subject matter eligibility cases to be heard by the Supreme Court in over five years—despite over 40 rejected petitions on the same issue. Subject matter eligibility matters to inventors, investors, and other patent stakeholders, because it directly impacts what does and does not receive a patent, and thus who does or doesn’t have the right to exclusively market and sell their invention as a reward for their creativity and ingenuity. However, the current test for patent subject matter eligibility, introduced in 2014, has been very difficult for the lower courts to administer. If the Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari for Berkheimer, it will have an opportunity to clarify the test. By more explicitly defining what can and cannot be patented, the Supreme Court, in theory, might better align the expectations of patent examiners, judges, and inventors, allowing the patent system to function more efficiently.
Continue reading “HP Inc. v. Berkheimer: Will SCOTUS Finally Clarify Patentable Subject Matter?”
