A recurring question in intellectual property law concerns the delineation of the scope of the protection it confers. Enforcing rights in intangible things often requires some form of interpretation (linguistic or otherwise) to determine the very boundaries of the thing protected. In order to understand what a copyright’s protection includes, for instance, it is necessary to engage in idea/expression analysis, or otherwise separate the utilitarian (non-protectable) aspects from the expressive (protectable) ones. A patent’s enforcement typically hinges on claim construction (or interpretation), and a trademark’s enforceability similarly depends on interpretive issues regarding the trademark’s meaning to consumers and its functionality. All three areas thus embed epistemological and evidentiary questions in their assessment of scope yet they are not always recognized as questions concerning interpretive choices and methods. Recent case law has seen renewed attention to interpretive questions, including how patents should be construed (and whether these issues are questions of fact or law); by whom; and at what point in litigation. Recent scholarly debates concern whether IP statutes should be interpreted like other subject matter statutes. This panel will examine the question of scope in intellectual property law as a function of interpretive questions that require greater theorization as such.
The Section held a virtual business meeting in advance of the Annual Meeting.