Author: mtpham2@illinois.edu

A note by Matt Pham

Download full note here.

Although well-intentioned to mitigate patent holdup risks, recent case law on Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing misses the mark on how a standard adds value to a technology and vice versa. Considering that technologies are not arbitrarily selected, the value of a standard is likely enriched by the inherent properties of its adopted technologies, justifying its inclusion within the relevant royalties. The inclusion of a standard’s value thus does not necessarily factor in any wrongful holdup value and would, to the contrary, mitigate any patent holdout concerns.  This note will explain how technologies contribute to the value of a standard and justify the standard’s inclusion in a FRAND royalty rate. This note will also show how the actual contribution of SSOs to a standard’s value can be distinguished in order to justify a lower FRAND royalty rate.… Read the rest

A note by Prateek Viswanathan

Download full note here.

This Note proposes requiring competitors to sell original products if they reverse engineer competing products with 3D scanning and printing. This proposal would mitigate market destructive effects by providing first inventors lead time to recoup R&D expenses.  Part II of this Note provides background on 3D printing and scanning, Illinois’s trade secrecy law, and reverse engineering. Part III analyzes how 3D printing and scanning may make reverse engineering market destructive and stress the patent system. Part IV proposes a localized solution by amending Illinois’s statute to require originality in competing products.… Read the rest

A note by Preslav Mantchev

Download full note here.

The Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Illinois Brick Company v. Illinois profoundly shaped private antitrust enforcement at the federal level in the United States. Yet, the Supreme Court’s avoidance of subsequent questions stemming from its Illinois Brick ruling has created a circuit split regarding plaintiff standing in cases involving anticompetitive behavior by multiple co-conspirators. This Note examines the origins of this “co-conspirator” exception to Illinois Brick and analyzes the differences in the exception’s treatment by circuit courts across the United States in order to promote a clearer, more-uniform application of the legal theory going forward.… Read the rest

A note by Dawson Oler

Download full note here.

This note will discuss the question of whether Uber should be legally classified as a technology company or a private taxi company. Uber should be classified as a taxi company because although they consider themselves merely a technological intermediary between passenger and driver, their practice is more similar to a taxi company. Like a taxi company, transportation is its main supply and without it, the service would not exist. In addition, classifying Uber as a taxi company protects consumers. Part II of this note will provide more background into this question and how courts have grappled with it in the past. Part III of this note will analyze the way ride-sharing apps like Uber have been regulated since they first came into existence. Part IV recommends that other states follow the example of one particularly innovative state who found a solution … Read the rest