The improper bending of scientific opinion by outside influences has been a concern of scholars and commentators for decades. The interference of outside influences with scientific analysis pushed Arthur Kantrowitz in 1967 to propose a procedure for making scientific assessment by non-scientists more objective. ... [show]

The improper bending of scientific opinion by outside influences has been a concern of scholars and commentators for decades. The interference of outside influences with scientific analysis pushed Arthur Kantrowitz in 1967 to propose a procedure for making scientific assessment by non-scientists more objective. The perception of increasing partisan influence in the mid-1970’s led to a vigorous public debate of the Kantrowitz proposal. A critical question of that debate is equally important for the current judicial system: how long will we tolerate the partisan exploitation of scientific uncertainty? This Article reviews Kantrowitz’s proposal, analyzes its criticisms, and discusses how it ultimately failed to change scientific evaluation methodology. After assessing legal changes that have occurred since Kantrowitz’s proposal, this Article proposes Congress should create a centralized Court of Scientific Jurisdiction to handle complex science and technology cases. Ultimately, this Article shows that by incorporating expertise into the judiciary, the Court of Scientific Jurisdiction could objectively assess scientific and technological evidence, resulting in more reliable, predictable, and scientifically valid outcomes, without sacrificing due process and fairness. [hide]

A litigant in patent litigation may seek a protective order containing a “prosecution bar” that prohibits attorneys who receive a disclosing party’s confidential information from prosecuting patent applications on behalf of the receiving party. When applying the Federal Circuit’s “competitive decisionmaking” analysis in the ... [show]

A litigant in patent litigation may seek a protective order containing a “prosecution bar” that prohibits attorneys who receive a disclosing party’s confidential information from prosecuting patent applications on behalf of the receiving party. When applying the Federal Circuit’s “competitive decisionmaking” analysis in the context of patent litigation, some district courts have found that patent prosecution is an inherently competitive activity, while others have disagreed and required a particularized showing beyond mere involvement in patent prosecution. A close reading of the case law will show that patent prosecution by itself should not amount to competitive decisionmaking. In any event, where a prosecution bar is to be imposed in a protective order, the type of information that would trigger a prosecution bar, and the duration of any such bar, should be narrowly defined and tailored to the specific facts of the case rather than on generalities. [hide]

Advances in biotechnology have raised the specter of “gene doping,” the use of genetic modification to enhance athletic performance. Although gene transfer therapies are relatively immature and still unfit for widespread human use, the potential for tremendous—and undetectable—performance gains makes these techniques alluring to ... [show]

Advances in biotechnology have raised the specter of “gene doping,” the use of genetic modification to enhance athletic performance. Although gene transfer therapies are relatively immature and still unfit for widespread human use, the potential for tremendous—and undetectable—performance gains makes these techniques alluring to athletes. International sporting organizations, acting in the name of athlete safety and promoting fair play, have preemptively condemned the practice of genetic modification in sport. Implementing a strict ban on genetic modification, however, may prove difficult. While safety concerns currently provide adequate justification for a total ban, improvements in technology and greater societal acceptance of genetic therapies are likely to make genetic modification in sport more palatable to athletes and spectators. Furthermore, straightforward application of the punitive model used for traditional forms of doping is problematic because of the difficulty of detecting and punishing those who use the techniques and because the ethical arguments against traditional doping carry somewhat less force in the context of gene-based enhancement. Accordingly, this Article examines how athletic organizations can accommodate genetic modification in sport, which would allow them to protect athlete safety and ensure a level playing field, while not stigmatizing genetic technology more generally. The Article concludes that while international sports regulatory bodies should play a role in discussing the role of genetics in society, they should withhold their strict condemnation of genetic modification in sport until broader cultural norms regarding the desirability of human genetic enhancement are more firmly established. [hide]

It is well established that naturally occurring matter and intangibles such as algorithms are generally not patentable. Encoded electromagnetic (“EM”) signals designed and manufactured by human beings, however, are not natural objects and should be patent-eligible subject matter. Unfortunately, there seems to be a ... [show]

It is well established that naturally occurring matter and intangibles such as algorithms are generally not patentable. Encoded electromagnetic (“EM”) signals designed and manufactured by human beings, however, are not natural objects and should be patent-eligible subject matter. Unfortunately, there seems to be a misconception that such signals are “unusual,” transient, intangible non-entities (non particles). Because of that misconception, EM signals have been held to be unpatentable. To the contrary, such signals can in fact be identified by humans and one skilled in the art can determine their longevity and tangibility precisely – i.e., to a scientist, the object is intransient enough to be tangible. Also, to a modern physicist, these signals are particles that exert pressure and constitute matter. As such, novel man-made encoded EM signals are inventions that should satisfy the requirements to be patentable subject matter. [hide]