Experimental use exception to patent infringement
Law students from Thomas M. Cooley Law School and the University of Michigan Law School recently were named winners in the 2013 Michigan Innovation and Intellectual Property Legal Writing Competition, sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Cooley Law School Graduate Program in Intellectual Property Law.
That sounds like a good thing. And it made me remember that when I wrote this article, I relied on an award-winning piece of student scholarship because it seemed to be pretty good.
This, in turn, made me think that publicizing the winners of these awards and their work could be a good idea. For one, boom: A blog post! I really need not go any further. Secondly, why not give talented law students, who we all know can use any help they can get, a bit of encouragement? And third, seeing as how the most talented students — a group that presumably includes winners of these awards — will probably get jobs and then have the creativity beaten out of them so they can “succeed” in the legal profession, maybe, um, something else good.
I asked for, and received, a copy of the winning paper, and permission to post it ahead of its publication, in this case in a journal called IPLS Proceedings. That’s actually reason-to-do-this number four: Not too many people read things in legal journals, to be perfectly frank. But, evidently, some people read blogs. Anyway, it couldn’t hurt.
So, I present you with the first-prize-winner’s paper: Kyle Quigley, a graduating senior at Cooley Law School, was awarded first prize for The Experimental Exception to Patent Infringement Should be Expanded: The Proposal Of A Modified Exception Comprising A Bright-Line Rule Permitting Experimental Use Upon Delivery Of Express Notice Of Intent.”
There ya go! Great work, Kyle. I should note that, as the press release says, Tasha Francis, a 2013 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, won second prize for her paper, “Continued Employment as Sufficient Consideration for Pre-Invention Assignment Agreements.” Notwithstanding Jerry Seinfeld’s view of the matter, second place is not to be sneezed at! At least if there are more than two places.
Finally, Jordan Zuppke, like Kyle a graduating senior at Cooley Law School, received third place for his paper, “Sole Purpose,” which sounds more like theology than intellectual property, but after all he couldn’t have won if God hadn’t wanted him to, so as I said, there ya go.
Congratulations to all of you! I am open to running items such as this in the future, for the reasons I’ve said before,and presuming it doesn’t, you know, get out of control. If that happens, I am open to running items like this in the future in return for whatever you might want to offer me, like an adjunct professorship or one of those cool endowed lecture series. Or cookies. Free country, no?
You know where to find me. Send the info, the winning paper or a link to it, and, if you like, pictures of prize-winners (I like pictures) (Kyle, you can still send yours if you want!) and if you’re very, very nice, I will make your school’s or society’s or section’s law-student-paper-prize-winner famous too. It’s not as good as a job in a law firm… but it may be better.