2021 JBTL Symposium - March 26, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented global impact on the operation of virtually all organizations. In a matter of weeks nearly the entire world shut down and shifted into primarily virtual environments. While remote working was once a highly coveted workplace perk, today it is practically a global standard. In response to the many implications surrounding the virtual workplace, the Journal of Business & Technology Law's 2021 symposium, “The Remote Revolution: A Discussion Regarding the Economic Impact of the Virtual Workplace,” explored the impact of the virtual workplace on professional environments in the future, as well as the associated legal challenges.

IPEC awarded first utility patent on smart glove to help stroke survivors 

The Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Clinic (IPEC) at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law has a history of assisting inventors with design patents, but recently, the clinic got approval on its first utility patent.
The difference? A design patent protects the way an item looks; a utility patent protects how an invention works. Describing how a device works and how it differs from earlier, similar inventions ioften significantly more complicated than making the same claim for a design, so it is more challenging for clinic students to submit successful utility patent applications.  

Symposium on Counterfeit Parts and Materials 2020 Technical Program - August 4, 2020

Legal Considerations Relating to Counterfeit Electronic Parts in the Defense Supply Chain presented by Patricia Campbell
Abstract: Section 843 of the 2019 National Defense Appropriations Act requires the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA), to establish a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of using machine-vision technologies to determine the authenticity and security of microelectronic parts in weapon systems. The pilot program is further required to evaluate the rules, regulations, and processes that could potentially hinder development and adoption of machine-vision technologies, as well as the use of such rules and regulations to mitigate counterfeit microelectronics proliferation through the Department of Defense. During the past year, the University of Maryland Carey School of Law has conducted research in direct support of that effort. Patricia Campbell, a professor at Maryland Carey Law, will provide a survey of the legal landscape relating to counterfeit part avoidance and prevention, including the various laws and policies that regulate counterfeit mitigation efforts by suppliers. George Eichelman, a law fellow at Maryland Carey Law, will provide information on legal problems and business challenges that hinder effective counterfeit prevention in the defense supply chain. The presentation will highlight the findings of a forthcoming report to DMEA by Maryland Carey Law, which is expected to includes recommended changes to laws, regulations, and standards in order to improve the development and incorporation of anti-counterfeit solutions, including machine-vision technologies, to support mitigation of the counterfeit threat.

“University Inventions Reconsidered: Debunking the Myth of University Ownership” by Patricia Campbell published in the William & Mary Business Law Review (2019).

Most universities today assert ownership rights over all patentable inventions (and many other types of intellectual property) created by members of the university community, including faculty, staff, students, visitors, and others. Universities then attempt to license that intellectual property (IP) to third parties, in order to generate revenue for the university and to give the public the benefit of innovations developed by the institution, often with the use of federal funds. This Article provides an evaluation of the technology transfer policies and practices of U.S. universities. Part I surveys the IP policies of a representative group of universities, showing that most universities claim outright ownership of the invention rights of most members of the university community, while a few require present or future assignment of such rights to the university. Part II reviews the history of IP ownership and demonstrates that claims to ownership of university inventions evolved slowly over the course of the last 100 years, beginning with inventor ownership as the accepted model and culminating in the passage of the Bayh- Dole Act in 1980 and subsequent case law. Parts III and IV provide two proposals for addressing problems in the current ownership and technology transfer model. One is a more “modest” proposal that could be implemented immediately by universities to bring their IP policies and agreements into line with relevant laws; the other is a long-term proposal for discussion and substantial change in which university inventors would have an option to retain ownership of their inventions, and universities could assume more natural and supportive roles as educators and facilitators.