Galleries

I Spy With My Legislative Eye

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

Remarks on the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015

Vault.pngby Gwen Wei

On April 4, 2016, the Senate approved Bill S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015 (“DTSA”) with a vote of 87-0. While major media outlets everywhere greeted this show of bipartisan support with well-deserved astonishment, legal professionals focused on a single question: will such an act be worth its costs?

Since the 1970s, practitioners and academics have clamored for a federal remedy specific to trade secret theft. Such demands have only grown with time: in 2013, the Obama administration released a 140-page report. In it, the administration recognized the exponential increase in trade secret theft from U.S. corporations and in international economic espionage, and contemplated solutions to this increasingly charged issue.

Continue reading →

Skechers’ Sketchy Designs

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 7.55.38 AM.png

By Talia Loucks

Remember when Skechers shoes were cool in the 90s? Well, now that the Spice Girls era of chunky platforms are no longer in style, and people opt for more conventional shoes, the modern shoe market has forced Skechers to expand into other shoe types. Unfortunately for Skechers, this expansion has resulted in trademark infringement claims against it, especially from Adidas.

This past September, Adidas filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Skechers in federal court for the District of Oregon. And, on February 12, 2016, Adidas had its first victory when Judge Marco A. Hernandez issued a preliminary injunction against Skechers, prohibiting it from selling its Onix, Relaxed Fit Cross Court TR, and women’s Supernova shoes as they are “confusingly similar” to three Adidas designs.

Continue reading →

Exit Smartphones, Enter Smart Contact Lenses

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / 1 Comment

contact lenseBy Tyler Quillin

Remember Google Glass? The spectacles Google

developed that allowed users to have hands-free, smart technology integrated into their eyewear.

Well, Google Glass did not do as well as projected, and Google ceased production in 2015. However, Google and Samsung are now rumored to be taking “wearable technology,” like Google Glass, to another level.

Both Google and Samsung are reportedly developing similar “smart” contact lenses. News surfaced on April 5, 2016 that Samsung submitted a patent application  for contact lenses with built-in cameras and other features. And both companies’ patent applications describe contact lenses containing a camera, sensors to detect movement, and antennae to interface with smart devices. Some speculate that blinking could control the lenses, which poses potential concerns over accidental commands.  However, by placing the device directly on the eye, the companies hope to improve clarity and accuracy, features that Google Glass lacked. Continue reading →

Using the Crying Michael Jordan Meme: Playful Troll or Inevitable Lawsuit?

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

mj memeBy Yayi Ding

The Crying Michael Jordan Meme has struck again! However, this time it has struck at the expense of Jordan’s own alma mater, the University of North Carolina (UNC). Earlier this month, the annual NCAA championship game ended in a dramatic fashion, as Villanova hit a buzzer-beating shot to end UNC’s title hopes. And almost immediately, the internet responded, with none other than the wildly popular Crying Michael Jordan Meme. The Crying Michael Jordan Meme has become an internet sensation in recent years, but can its use ever lead to legal troubles? Continue reading →

“But I Found It First!” Life Science Company Seeks SCOTUS Review Over Patent Eligibility of Natural Discoveries

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

materniBy Miriam Swedlow

On March 21, 2016, Sequenom, Inc. asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that rendered invalid the company’s patent directed towards detecting paternally inherited cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in a pregnant woman’s blood.

In 1996, two doctors discovered the presence of cffDNA in maternal plasma and serum. Once discovered, the doctors used established laboratory techniques to separate and amplify the genetic material to identify paternally inherited DNA and perform genetic diagnostic tests on it. Sequenom, Inc. commercialized the method as its MaterniT21 prenatal diagnostic test. Utilizing the test allows pregnant women to screen for many prenatal defects without having to undergo dangerous and invasive procedures into the uterus. Continue reading →