- Professor Ryan Holte, Southern Illinois Law
- Professior Yvette Liebesman, St. Louis Law
Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy at Pepperdine School of Law, explains the FAA’s distinction between the commercial and the recreational use of drones, questioning whether or not this distinction is important.
Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy at Pepperdine School of Law, discusses new regulations concerning recreational drone use recently issued by the FAA. Professor McNeal explains that these new regulations represent an enormous break from the past, and likely stem from the widespread and increasing popularity of drones.
The Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to grant authors and inventors exclusive rights in their writings and inventions. The first Congress passed laws setting forth the requirements and procedures for granting patents and copyrights. In these early days, copyrights were granted for registered works, and Thomas Jefferson himself examined patents as a member of President George Washington's cabinet. As IP laws developed, however, they gave substantial deference to both the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and the Copyright Office, on matters of reviewing, granting, limiting, and defining IP rights. These agencies have come to wield significant influence over the U.S. IP regime. Recently, and notwithstanding its delegations of power, Congress has been particularly active in passing new patent and copyright legislation. Sometimes Congress specifies how the law shall be interpreted and administered, and other times it delegates this to the relevant agencies, or to the courts. By considering specific examples, this panel will examine the role of Congress, Congressional delegation, and executive agencies in crafting and administering our modern intellectual property systems.
Intellectual Property: The Role of Congress and Executive Agencies in 21st Century IP Regimes
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
The Mayflower Hotel
In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, citing stare decisis, the Court held that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired. In so holding, the Court affirmed a 60 year-old case along the same lines. But in yesterday’s decision, three justices dissented, stating that “[t] he Court employs stare decisis, normally a tool of restraint, to reaffirm a clear case of judicial overreach.” Should the Court have reversed course?