英文互译镜像站

*UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law*
Discipline	American law, Technology law, Intellectual property law
Language	English
Former name	John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law
Standard abbreviations;
Bluebook	UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L.
ISO 4	Find out here
Links
	Journal homepage ;

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Last updated February 02, 2026

Notable contributions

John Paul Stevens, Section 43(A) of the Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction: The Beverly W. Pattishall Inaugural Lecture in Trademark Law, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 179 (2002).
Paul Redmond Michel, Founding a New Journal in the Age of Electronic Law, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 Archived 2011-07-23 at the Wayback Machine (2001).
Richard Linn, Effective Appellate Practice Before the Federal Circuit, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2002).
Richard Posner, Transaction Costs and Antitrust Concerns in the Licensing of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005).
Q. Todd Dickinson, et al., The Genetic Age: Who Owns the Genome?, 2 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 6 (2002) (symposium).
Marybeth Peters, Copyright & Privacy - Through the Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005).

References

↑ UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law web site, Archived 2007-10-08 at the Wayback Machine .
↑ See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. , 795 F.3d 1024. 1031 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2015), citing Patricia Larios, The U.S. International Trade Commission's Growing Role in the Global Economy, 8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 290, 294 (2009); Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 735 F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Robert H. Thornburg, "Trademark Surveys: Development of Computer-Based Survey Methods," 4 John Marshall Rev. Intellectual Property L. 91, 97 (2004); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Harold C. Wegner, An Enzo White Paper: A New Judicial Standard for a Biotechnology “Written Description” Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 254, 263 (2002)); Larball Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Lipa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56768 (S.D.N.Y 2025) citing Rachael Belensz, Un-Blurred Lines: A Proposal for A More Objective Method in Determining the Extent of Similarities Between Musical Works for the Purpose of Probative Copying, 20 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 251, 270 (2021).

External links

Official website

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

烟雨镜像程序蚪侠镜像站群小偷程序自动镜像站群站群镜像程序

[1] UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law web site, Archived 2007-10-08 at the Wayback Machine .

[2] See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. , 795 F.3d 1024. 1031 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2015), citing Patricia Larios, The U.S. International Trade Commission's Growing Role in the Global Economy, 8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 290, 294 (2009); Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 735 F.3d 735, 741 (7th Cir. 2013), citing Robert H. Thornburg, "Trademark Surveys: Development of Computer-Based Survey Methods," 4 John Marshall Rev. Intellectual Property L. 91, 97 (2004); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Harold C. Wegner, An Enzo White Paper: A New Judicial Standard for a Biotechnology “Written Description” Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 254, 263 (2002)); Larball Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Lipa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56768 (S.D.N.Y 2025) citing Rachael Belensz, Un-Blurred Lines: A Proposal for A More Objective Method in Determining the Extent of Similarities Between Musical Works for the Purpose of Probative Copying, 20 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 251, 270 (2021).

[1]

[2]

英文互译镜像站

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Contents

Notable contributions

References

External links