Chicago-Kent College of Law is the law school affiliated with the Illinois Institute of Technology. It is the second oldest law school in the state of Illinois. It is ranked 91st among U.S. law schools, and its trial advocacy program is ranked in 2015 by U.S. News & World Report as the fourth best program in the U.S. According to Chicago-Kent's 2014 American Bar Association-required disclosures, 85% of the 2014 class secured a position six months after graduation. Of these 248 employed graduates, 172 were in positions requiring passage of the bar exam.S.S.S.
In eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis, the small subunit (SSU) processome is a metastable intermediate in the assembly of the small (40S) subunit. In the SSU processome, the ribosomal RNA domains are splayed open by the intervention of assembly factors as well as U3 snoRNA. A critical step during the transition from the SSU processome to the nearly mature pre-40S particle is the removal of the U3 snoRNA to allow the formation of the central pseudoknot, a universally conserved structure which connects all domains of the subunit and contributes to its dynamic nature during translation. We previously identified the DEAH/RHA RNA helicase Dhr1 as the enzyme responsible for displacing the U3 snoRNA and the SSU processome factor Utp14 as an activator of Dhr1. Here, we have utilized biochemical and yeast genetic methods to further characterize Dhr1. We show that the N terminus as well as an internal loop within the RecA2 domain are autoinhibitory. We found that Utp14 can activate the ATPase activity of Dhr1 lacking the autoinhibitory N-terminal loop but not full-length Dhr1. We considered the possibility that Utp14 activates Dhr1 by relieving the autoinhibition of the loop within the RecA2 domain. However, our results are more consistent with Utp14 activating Dhr1 by binding to the surface of the RecA1 and RecA2 domains rather than displacing the inhibitory loop. This position of Utp14 is distinct from how G-patch proteins activate other DEXH/RHA helicases and is consistent with our previous conclusion that Utp14 is not a canonical G-patch protein.
With increasing frequency, patent holders have made voluntary public commitments (pledges) to limit the enforcement of their patents without direct compensation. After introducing the background and market impact of patent pledges, this chapter focuses on the effect on patent pledges on the organizations that make them, both as tools of patent portfolio management and as binding organizational commitments. To further this analysis a new taxonomy of patent pledges is developed based on their legal structure: Type A (unilateral covenants), Type B (bilateral commitments) and Type C (public licenses). Following this structure, the conditions, if any, under which a potential pledge beneficiary may enforce the pledge obligation against the pledgor are explored through the lenses of legal theories including antitrust/competition, contract, license and promissory estoppel. This chapter concludes with an analysis of the legal remedies available to a party seeking to enforce a patent pledge against the pledgor, and applies this analysis to the recent case of Moderna's mRNA vaccine pledge and subsequent litigation against Pfizer and BioNTech.
Predominantly state trade secret law and exclusively federal patent law enjoy a sometimes-uneasy coexistence. Inventions almost always are secret until and unless they are patented; publicizing them for too long will negate the availability of a patent. Misappropriation of trade secrets often is accompanied by application for a patent on the same subject matter. This commonly occurs when an employee gains access to his employer’s trade secrets, quits, and then applies for a patent on them in his own name, maybe after going to work for a competitor of the original employer. It is also conceivable that the owner of a trade secret licenses it to another and then proceeds to get a patent on it, making the license worthless, because the publication of the patent and its application extinguish the trade secret. When that happens, what happens to the business opportunities that the licensee has developed by using the trade secrets? Can he convert his now useless trade secret license into a license to practice the patent? If he can protect his own practice of the patent, can he also exclude others? Answering these questions requires nuanced understanding and careful application of complex boundaries between state and federal law; rights, privileges, and powers comprising the bundle of interests that define intellectual property; and appreciation of the remedies available in law and equity for misappropriation and infringement in light of their historical development.
Open government data initiatives have the potential to improve civic participation and trust in government by making government data more transparent to and inclusive of citizens. However, it remains under debate if and how open data initiatives can meet these goals. Through a case study of a state-level government open data initiative with rural hunters, we explore the impact that open data had on citizen-government relations and citizen perspectives on data more broadly. Interviews with 14 hunters led to findings that the open data initiative improved feelings of trust and respect between hunters and the government agency behind the open data initiative. Additionally, hunters' involvement with data collection and consumption led them to stake a role in the open data ecosystem and develop critical perspectives on data. We suggest that open data initiatives could better achieve these benefits by valuing citizen expertise in open data contributions and involving citizens more holistically in the open data ecosystem.
