Quarterly Journal Volume 51, Issue 4
In This Section
![](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/125th-anniversary/copyright71d6fe50-7a97-46b6-9587-a824908a1d97.png?sfvrsn=2ab2acd9_1)
Glynn S. Lunney, Jr
The Copyright Act is a statute, but courts seldom treat it as one. Instead of relying on the precise language of the statute, courts often treat the Act as some general prohibition on plagiarism or copying writ large. This article argues for a different approach. It argues that courts should treat the Copyright Act like a statute and define a copyright owner's exclusive rights according to the precise language by which Congress defined those rights. The results are startling. Treating the Copyright Act as a statute, courts should define the exclusive rights far more narrowly than they currently and generally are.
![](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/125th-anniversary/image-60b865d01-f5be-422e-bc28-bfe034f8690f.png?sfvrsn=79a336d_1)
Kelsey Ann Kerr
Persons with rare diseases or conditions already are often left without treatment, due to inadequate research, or funding for research. Congress thus enacted the Orphan Drug Act ("ODA") to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to perform further research and development to treat these diseases. What is often neglected, sadly, is how there are subsets—subpopulations—within these diseases for whom drugs are not FDA-approved. Under the new Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra ruling, the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the ODA to grant orphan drug exclusivity ("ODE")—which traditionally was understood by FDA to be seven years’ exclusivity of the market for a particular approved “intended use”—for the entire condition for a particular drug. If FDA follows this interpretation, subsets of the population may be left without treatment while they wait for the exclusivity period to pass so that FDA can grant approval for their use of the drug. To avoid this result, there must be a legislative fix that amends the ODA such that the exclusivity provision relating to the “same drug for the same disease or condition” is applied for only the “approved use or indication.” To further enhance access to critical therapies for rare diseases, a clinical testing requirement should be imposed to include subpopulations of rare diseases or conditions. Alternatively, FDA should, as it has in its January notice, find ways to side-step the Catalyst ruling so that subpopulations have access to necessary treatment.
![Copyright](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/news-publications/music-piracy-100x100.jpg?sfvrsn=9d211385_0)
Wanjiru (Wan) Gikiri
THE NECESSITY OF THE DE MINIMIS DEFENSE WITHIN MUSIC SAMPLING
Sampling is a unique technique consisting of taking small bits of prior recordings and including them in a new sound recording. However, despite sampling promoting a progression in creativity, some believe that it is “copying” and should not be permitted. This argument, which has been adopted by the Sixth Circuit, rests on the idea that if an artist takes any part of a prior work, even if it is minuscule, they must obtain a license. The Ninth Circuit created a circuit split when it developed the opinion that the “de minimis” defense can be used in sound recording cases involving music sampling. The validity of the Ninth Circuit's opinion is notable, given it promotes the goal of copyright. The best solution to the current circuit split would be to implement a two-part statute that (1) codifies the de minimis defense properly into copyright law and (2) ensures every defense available for other copyrightable works is available for sound recordings. Thus, sampling would be a permissible art form, and artists would be able to develop upon prior works to create new works of art, overall promoting creativity.
![](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/125th-anniversary/case-law.jpg?sfvrsn=b7e88403_1)
Upcoming Events
-
AIPLA 2024 Annual Meeting
October 24 to 26, 2024
Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2024 Annual meeting will take place at the Gaylord National Harbor Resort. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, October 23. Programming scheduled October 24-26. -
2024 Annual Meeting
October 24 to 26, 2024
Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2024 Annual meeting will take place at the Gaylord National Harbor Resort. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, October 23. Programming scheduled October 24-26. -
2025 Leadership Forum
January 29 to 30, 2025
AIPLA Leadership Forum – Elevate Yourself, Inspire the Future. This invitation-only two-day program will address building strong leadership skills for all levels of experience. More details coming soon. -
2025 AIPLA Spring Meeting
May 13 to 15, 2025
The 2025 Spring Meeting Planning Committee is now accepting topic submissions through their Call For Topics form. Registration opens February 2025. More details coming soon!