DEPAUL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW 25 E JACKSON BLVD, ROOM 705 CELL: (312) CHICAGO, IL 60604

Transcription

1 DEPAUL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW STEFANIA FUSCO 25 E JACKSON BLVD, ROOM 705 CELL: (312) CHICAGO, IL EDUCATION Doctor of the Science of Law (J.S.D.), Stanford Law School, June 2010 Thesis: From State Street to Bilski: Patent Protection in the Financial Industry Advisor: Professor Mark Lemley GPA: 3.85/4.1 Master of the Science of Law (J.S.M.), Stanford Law School, May 2005 Thesis: Geographical Indications: A Discussion of the TRIPS Regulation Before the Ministerial Conference of Hong Kong Advisor: Professor Mark Lemley GPA: 3.93/4.1 M.B.A., University of Illinois at Chicago, May 2003 Concentration: Accounting and Finance GPA: 4.70/5.0 LL.M., Chicago-Kent College of Law, May 2001 Concentration: International and Comparative Law GPA: 3.45/4.0 Dottore in Giurisprudenza (J.D. equivalent), Università degli Studi di Torino Facoltà di Giurisprudenza (Turin Law School), December 1999 Final Score: 100/110 TEACHING INTERESTS Core Teaching Interests: Patents; Trademark; Copyright; International Intellectual Property; Introduction to Intellectual Property; Property; Corporate Finance; Business Associations; Financial Institutions Additional Teaching Interests: Conflict of Laws; International Business Transactions; Comparative Law; Contracts; Commercial Law; EU Law PUBLICATIONS The Patentability Requirements in the Venetian Republic Between the 15 th and 18 th Centuries (in progress) A Proper Interpretation of the 1474 Venetian Patent Act with Ted Sichelman and Toni Veneri (draft) The Venetian Republic s Tailoring of Patent Protection to the Characteristic of the Invention (draft) TRIPS Non-Discrimination Principle: Are Alice and Bilski Really the End of NPEs? 24 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. (Forthcoming 2016) Markets and Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the US and EU, 20 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 439 (2014) Rules versus Standards: Competing Notions of Inconsistency Robustness in Patent Law with David Olson, 64 Ala. L. Rev. 647 (2013) 1

2 The Patentability of Financial Methods: The Market Participants Perspective, 45 Loy L.A. L. Rev. 1 (2011) In re Bilski: A Conversation with Judge Randall Rader and a First Look at the BPAI s Cases, 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 123 (2010) Is In re Bilski a Déjà Vu? (Commentary), Stan. Tech. L. Rev. P1 (2009); article selected for reprinting in the Patent Law Review (2010) Is the Use of Patents Promoting the Creation of New Types of Securities? 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 243 (2009) Geographical Indications: A Discussion of the TRIPS Regulation After the Ministerial Conference of Hong Kong, 12 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 197 (2008) CONFERENCES AND SYMPOSIA 15th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL. August 6-7, 2015 Presenter: TRIPS Non-Discrimination Principle: Are Alice and Bilski Really the End of NPEs? 16th Annual Intellectual Property Law Symposium The University of Texas School of Law in Austin, TX. February 20, 2015 Invited Speaker: TRIPS Non-Discrimination Principle: Is Alice Really the End of NPEs? 12th Annual Works in Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. February 6-7, 2015 Presenter: The Venetian Republic s Tailoring of Patent Protection to the Characteristics of the Invention 14th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA. August 7-8, 2014 Presenter: The Venetian Republic s Tailoring of Patent Protection to the Characteristics of the Invention 13th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, NY. August 8-9, 2013 Presenter: The Patentability Requirements in the Venetian Republic between the 15 th and 18 th Centuries 2013 Patent Conference (PatCon) IIT Chicago-Kent College Law School, Chicago, IL. April 12-13, 2013 Presenter: Markets and Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the US and EU 10th Annual Works in Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, NJ. February 22-23, 2013 Presenter: Markets and Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the US and EU 12th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA. August 9-10, 2012 Presenter: Markets and Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the US and EU 2012 Patent Conference (PatCon) Boston College Law School, Newton, MA. May 11-12, 2012 Presenter: The IPCom Case and the Factors That Promote Patent Trolls Activity 9th Annual Works in Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium 2

3 University Houston Law Center, Houston, TX. February 10-11, 2012 Presenter: The IPCom Case and the Factors That Promote Patent Trolls Activity Santa Clara University s Computer and High Technology Law Journal Symposium, International Intellectual Property Is The IP World Flat? Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, CA. January 27, 2012 Panel Speaker: The IPCom Case and the Factors That Promote Patent Trolls Activity IP Academic Conference 2011 University of New Hampshire School of Law, Concord, NH. September 30, 2011 Presenter: Federal Circuit Bright Line Rules vs. Supreme Court Standards in Patent Law Inconsistency Robustness 2011 Stanford University, Stanford, CA. August 16-18, 2011 Program Committee Member Presenter: Federal Circuit Bright Line Rules vs. Supreme Court Standards in Patent Law 11th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL. August 11-12, 2011 Presenter: The IPCom Case and the Factors that Promote Patent Trolls Activity 2011 Patent Conference (PatCon) University of Kansas School of Law, Lawrence, KS. April 8, 2011 Presenter: The Federal Circuit's Use of De Novo Review to Cure Inconsistencies 8th Annual Works in Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium Boston University School of Law, Boston, MA. February 11-12, 2011 Presenter: The Patentability of Financial Methods: The Market Participants Perspective Stanford Law Review Symposium, The Future of Patents: Bilski and Beyond Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA. January 28-29, 2011 Moderator: The Effect of the Bilski Case on Research and Innovation in Different Areas 10th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA. August 12-13, 2010 Presenter: The Patentability of Financial Methods: The Market Participants Perspective Berkeley Intellectual Property & Technology Law Workshop UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA. May 7, 2009 Presenter: In re Bilski: A Conversation with Judge Randall Rader 6th Annual Works in Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium Tulane University Law School, New Orleans, VA. October 3-4, 2008 Presenter: Is the Use of Patents Promoting the Creation of New Types of Securities? 8th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA. August 7-8, 2008 Presenter: Is the Use of Patents Promoting the Creation of New Types of Securities? Geographical Indications-Rural Development, The Meaning of Place, and The Implications for Trade Talks Cardozo Law School, New York, NY. October 10, 2005 Presenter: Is Wine the Way? The International Regulation of Geographical Indications HONORS Transatlantic Technology Law Forum Research Fellow at Stanford Law School Kauffman Research Fellow at Stanford Law School

4 J.S.M. Merit Scholarship from Procom Communication Group M.B.A. Merit Scholarship from the University of Illinois at Chicago LL.M. Merit Scholarship from the Justinian Society of Lawyers ADMISSIONS New York Bar (2004) EXPERIENCE Senior Lecturer in Law. Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, IN. January Present Subjects: International IP, Corporate Finance Hosier Distinguished Visitor. DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL. July Present Subjects: Patents, International IP, Advanced IP Seminar, Corporate Finance Visiting Assistant Professor. DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, IL. July December 2012; July 2013 July 2015 Subjects: Patents, International IP, Advanced IP Seminar, Corporate Finance Visiting Assistant Professor. University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA. January 2013 July 2013 Subjects: Patents, International IP Visiting Assistant Professor. University of New Hampshire School of Law, Concord, NH. August 2011 July 2012 Subjects: International IP, Property Lecturer in Law. Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, CA. July 2010 June 2011 Subjects: Trademark, IP Theory Research Assistant. Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA. October 2005 May 2009 Supervised two Master students research on intellectual property issues; served as first reader of their Master s Theses Assisted Professor Alan Sykes in updating his book Legal Problems of International Economic Relations Editor of the Stanford Law and Technology Newsletter Prepared literature review on The Enforceability of Contracts Between Software Agents for the MediaX Project Discussed the development of the MediaX platform Assisted Professor Laura Beny with research on insider trading law; gathered and analyzed data related to market structures International Guest. Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garret & Dunner LLP, CA. Summer 2006 Assisted with drafting of preliminary amendments, letters and opinions Researched, analyzed and compared the patentability of software and business methods in different countries Editorial Assistant. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Chicago, IL. August May 2003 Managed review process of articles through daily collaboration with Emeritus scientists from several countries Assisted Associate Editors, reviewers and authors through regular correspondence Drafted proposal for the creation of a new IEEE IP Law Electronic Magazine to the IEEE Board of Directors 4

5 Program Chair Assistant. IEEE Nanotechnology Conference 2002, Washington DC. July July 2002 Organized and managed the review process of approximately 600 papers Assisted authors with all issues arising from the submission of articles Legal Apprentice. Luca Bruno, Attorney at Law, Turin, Italy. January October 2003 Drafted motions, pleadings and memoranda Negotiated with policyholders, claimants and attorneys to evaluate personal injury, no-fault and property damage insurance Conducted mediation; interviewed clients and witnesses Full time: January July 2000 and during school breaks August October MISCELLANEOUS Languages: Italian (native), English (fluent), Spanish (basic) US Citizen Community Service: Santa Teresa Institute in Chieri (Turin, Italy): Organized activities for the Children s Summer Program; collaborated with Institute to organize fund-raising events in support of African Missions affiliated with the school Santa Teresa of Avila Parish (Chicago, IL): assisted with the distribution of food to economically disadvantaged families in the community Activities: Program Committee Member for Inconsistency Robustness 2011 and 2014 at Stanford University President of the Stanford Advanced Degree Student Association ( ) Organized talks featuring faculty speakers at Stanford Law School ( ) 5

6 REFERENCES Mark A. Lemley William H. Neukom Professor of Law Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA Telephone: (650) Roberta R. Kwall Professor of Law DePaul University College of Law 25 East Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois Telephone: (312) Graeme B. Dinwoodie Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law St. Peter s College, University of Oxford 34 New Inn Hall Street Oxford, OX1 2DL England, UK Telephone: + 44 (0) Graeme.Dinwoodie@law.ox.ac.uk Eric Goldman Professor of Law and Director, High Tech Law Institute Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA Telephone: (408) egoldman@scu.edu Alan O. Sykes Professor of Law Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA Telephone: (650) asykes@law.stanford.edu Mark P. McKenna Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development, Professor of Law Notre Dame Presidential Fellow University of Notre Dame The Law School 3120 Eck Hall of Law Notre Dame, IN Telephone: (574) markmckenna@nd.edu Deborah R. Hensler Judge John W. Ford Professor of Dispute Resolution and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA Telephone: (650) dhensler@stanford.edu Joshua D. Sarnoff Professor of Law DePaul University College of Law 25 East Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois Telephone: (312) jsarnoff@depaul.edu G. Marcus Cole Wm. Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA Telephone: (650) gmcole@stanford.edu R. Anthony Reese Chancellor s Professor UC Irvine School of Law 401 East Peltason Drive Irvine, CA Telephone: (949) treese@law.uci.edu 6

7 RESEARCH AGENDA My research focus is primarily intellectual property law and the impact that IP law exerts on innovation in different fields. I am particularly interested in how the requirements for protection in patent law are used to create incentives to innovate and simultaneously to protect the public domain. My work draws intellectual depth and range from my expertise in finance and my international background. Consequently, my scholarship addresses issues relevant to innovation in the financial industry and other industries, such as the software and medical diagnostic industries that, in the context of patent law, present similar challenges. To inform current debates in patent law, I prefer to conduct empirical investigations, often involving the comparative analysis of the US and European legal systems and industries. My international background and interest in the promotion of innovation are also key motivators for me to study the historical origin of the patent system, including conducting archival research at the Venice State Archives. I received my Doctor of Science of Law (J.S.D.) from Stanford Law School in June My doctoral dissertation focused on patentable subject matter, specifically patent eligibility of financial methods, and resulted in three major papers. The first paper Is the Use of Patents Promoting the Creation of New Types of Securities? analyzes innovation in the securities field. It also investigates the patent applications submitted and the patents issued for securities subsequent to the Federal Circuit s 1998 decision in State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. In State Street, the court held that business methods were patentable; financial methods, considered to be a subset of business methods thereby became patentable as well. My research reveals that in the ten years between 1998 and 2008, the rate of innovation in securities was constant, whereas after 2004, the number of patent applications on securities dropped significantly, thus indicating innovators reduced interest in patent protection in this sector. The second paper, In re Bilski: A Conversation with Judge Randall Rader and a First Look at the BPAI s Cases, revolves around the Federal Circuit s 2008 decision in In re Bilski, which essentially overruled State Street. In this paper, I assess the initial impact of the decision on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) cases. I also used the Federal Circuit s Bilski decision as the focus of a short commentary published in February 2009 in the Stanford Technology Law Review that was subsequently selected for reprint in the Patent Law Review. My third paper, The Patentability of Financial Methods: The Market Participants Perspective, describes and analyzes the interviews I conducted with market participants in the financial sector to explain the phenomenon that I identified in Are Patents Promoting New Securities?-- namely, a substantial reduction in patent applications for securities post I also offer evidence in this paper to support an inference in my earlier paper that in the ten years following State Street, patent protection has had no significant impact on innovation in the financial industry. Following the completion of my doctoral dissertation, I worked on an article, Rules versus Standards: Competing Notions of Inconsistency Robustness in Patent Law (co-authored with David Olson), that analyzes the choices that the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have made to resolve the inconsistencies present in the patent system. So 1

8 far, these two courts have opted for different solutions: the Federal Circuit preferred strict rules, whereas the Supreme Court favored standards. The result has been considerable uncertainty in certain areas of patent law. In this paper, I analyze these two courts strategies through the lens of the Inconsistency Robustness (IR) paradigm. IR encourages system designers and administrators to recognize that inconsistency is inevitable in robust systems that can perform reliably, and that rather than trying to eliminate it, one should aim to manage it. The article concludes that the Federal Circuit s and Supreme Court s adoption of different strategies in patent law is explained by considering the two courts as separate administrators within a single system, each attempting to implement the IR paradigm as they understand it from their unique positions. In the spirit of IR, I suggest that both courts would better serve the values of the legal system in the area of patent law by adopting a more comprehensive approach and, thus, considering the costs and benefits of the law to all participants and administrators involved. More recently, I wrote an article entitled Markets and Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the US and Europe, which examines why Non-Practicing Entities ( NPEs ) have not been nearly as active in Europe as they have been in the US. Previous investigations have demonstrated that NPE activity became prominent in the US only during the last decade. Perhaps surprisingly, this activity, unlike many other successful entrepreneurial activities, did not proliferate in Europe in any significant way. This paper first confirms that NPE activity is, in fact, depressed in Europe compared in the US, and then offers possible explanations for this result, including differences in legal regimes, specifically, the availability of a certain kind of injunction for patent infringements and damage awards, the availability of funding, and the size of relevant industries. Ultimately, my comparative analysis demonstrates that differences in legal regimes do not have much explanatory power for the presence of NPE activity and that what really matters in this context is the size of the relevant industries. NPE activity and patentable subject matter are also central to my article entitled TRIPS Non-Discrimination Principle: Are Alice and Bilski Really the End of NPEs? (Forthcoming), in which I analyze the Supreme Court s Alice and Bilski decisions and discuss the reduction in the level of patent protection provided to software, business methods and medical diagnostic methods that they have engendered. Specifically, I investigate whether the aftermath of these two decisions causes the U.S. to be in conflict with Article 27(1) of the TRIPS Agreement. My article shows that in the context of the review of other countries IP laws, the U.S. has consistently interpreted Article 27(1) TRIPS as requiring software and business methods to be patent eligible. Consequently, it appears unlikely that the U.S. will be able to argue otherwise in the context of a WTO challenge involving 101 of the U.S. Patent Act and the Alice and Bilski decisions. Moreover, the activity of NPEs in the U.S. is highly dependent on the availability of enforceable software and business methods patents. In this paper, I also discuss the significance that a possible violation of international obligations on patentable subject matter by the U.S. would have on NPEs. Indeed, my international perspective raises the question as to whether the Alice and Bilski decisions represent the final word on the eligibility of processes to receive patent protection, or whether there will be additional interventions by the Supreme Court to restore protection on software, business methods, 2

9 medical diagnostic methods and other inventions in related fields to a more intermediate level. Consequently, my analysis also raises the question of whether a new stimulus to NPE operations will be provided in the near future. I am currently working on a project to analyze the patents issued by the Venetian Republic between the 15 th and 18 th centuries. Scholars have generally attested to the fact that the Venetian Patent Act of 1474 marked an important shift in the history of patent law from Senate-granted privileges to modern patents based on statutory criteria. In A Proper Interpretation of the 1474 Venetian Patent Act (co-authored with Ted Sichelman and Toni Veneri), based on an extensive examination of archival material, I contend that this view is incorrect. Indeed, the Patent Act of 1474 merely provided an alternative system in which inventors could seek short-term patents upon completion of a working model. After 1474, inventors continued to seek longer-term patents from the Venetian Senate while the customary system remained the dominant granting mechanism in Venice. Consequently, the migration of the principles and form of the Venetian patent system throughout Europe, including England, probably originated from the Senatecustomary system rather than the 1474 Patent Act, as previously argued. Finally, in recent years an important debate has revolved around the issue of the inadequacy of a single form of patent protection to provide an adequate incentive to all inventors. Patent scholars have consistently argued that in patent law, one size does not fit all and that to be truly effective, patent protection should be tailored to the characteristics of different industries. In the article, entitled The Venetian Republic s Tailoring of Patent Protection to the Characteristic of the Invention, I will discuss how the Venetian Republic protected different inventions in different ways between the 15 th and 18 th centuries. A preliminary analysis of the original documents collected at the Venice State Archive indicates that the Venetian Republic regularly practiced tailoring activity in patent law through its customary system. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the Venetian experience will have a significant impact on the modern debate with respect to reforming patent law. One of the issues that I will focus on is investigating the factors that ultimately caused the well-established Venetian Republic s tailoring practice in patent law to disappear following the Napoleonic invasions of The following is a description of the research projects that I plan to pursue upon completion of the studies involving the 1474 Patent Act and the Venetian Republic s tailoring activity in patent law: Project 1: The Patentability Requirements in the Venetian Republic between the 15th and 18th Centuries In 1474, the Venetian Republic enacted what is widely recognized as being the first Patent Act in the world. Legal scholars have generally assumed that, subsequently, patents were granted in Venice based on the requirements set forth in this Act. This is because they relied on the writings of historians and political scientists who did not have legal training and, consequently, overlooked many of the legal nuances of the Venetian patent system. In fact, up until now, only two other legal scholars have examined the original Venetian patents. In this article I use original documents from the Venetian State 3

10 Archives to present a detailed account of the patentability requirements for Venetian and foreign inventors to secure a Venetian patent. I expect that an accurate description of these requirements will be very important in order to fully understand the reasons behind the adoption of the first patent system in the world as well as its effects on modern patent systems. Project 2: The Role of Technology Transfer Offices in Determining a Patent Culture: What Can We Learn by Comparing Universities Patenting Strategies in the US and the EU? Inventors understand and appreciate patent law differently, especially if they operate in different fields. For example, inventors in the pharmaceutical industry consider patent protection to be of great importance for their activity, whereas inventors in the financial industry show very little interest in patent law. Ultimately, a different patent culture appears to be present in each sector. Moreover, patent culture changes not only from one industry to another, but presumably, also geographically from one country to another, specifically, the US and the EU. This makes sense if we consider the fact that US patent law is based on a utilitarian rationale, whereas in the EU, when patent protection is discussed, the concept of natural justice also comes into play. This paper will examine the nature and extent of this difference systematically and exhaustively, by comparing the patenting strategies of the universities technology transfer offices in the US and the EU. Often inventors are first exposed to patent law when they are working towards the completion of their degrees. Thus, most inventors patent culture begins to form at the university. I believe that analyzing and comparing the different strategies of the universities technology transfer offices will shed new light on the patent culture in the US and the EU. Moreover, it will provide important insights into the practical effects engendered by the identified differences particularly in the context of the patent eligibility of subject matters such as business methods, software, biotechnology related inventions and medical diagnostic methods which currently are the center of significant debate. 4