Search the archive.

“Circular 1: Copyright Basics,” U.S. Copyright Office, September 2021, pp. 1, https://copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf.

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. An original work of authorship is a work that is independently created by a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. A work is “fixed” when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time. Copyright protection in the United States exists automatically from the moment the original work of authorship is fixed.1

“In,” The Britannica Dictionary,” https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/in.

in /ˈɪn/ /ən/ preposition

“In,” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/in.

in

“In,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in.

in

“In,” Collins Dictionary, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in.

in

Opinion by Kevin R. Casey, “Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc.,” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, 30 November 2009, pp. 234, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140383.

Although the claims recite only one positional relationship between the gas equilibration reservoir and the conduit, namely that the former is positioned in the latter, the '824 written description (including both text and drawings) teaches three, separate positional embodiments.56 Turning first to the text of the specification, taught is one embodiment in which the gas equilibrium reservoir is "within" the conduit (col. 9, line 42) or "in" the conduit (col. 3, lines 18, 42).57

Karen Hecker, “United States v. Lutes,” 72 M.J. 530, 31 January 2013, pp. 533-534, Lexis.

As does its federal counterpart, Mil. R. Evid. 201 authorizes judicial notice of "adjudicative facts" which are defined as "simply the facts of the particular case." See Drafters' [**9] Analysis at A22-4. Domestic law can constitute an adjudicative fact and be eligible for judicial notice if it is a "fact that is of consequence to the determination" of the case.3

“What is domestic law?” Children & Young People's Commissioner Scotland, https://www.cypcs.org.uk/faq/what-is-domestic-law/.

The domestic laws of a country are laws that can be upheld in its courts.

“26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions,” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701#a_4.

(4) Domestic The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.

“Party Lien Debt Pledge and Security Agreement,” filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 28 March 2017, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1540729/000110465917021037/a17-10103_1ex10d4.htm.

“Domestic Laws” shall mean the laws, rules or regulations of the United States or any State thereof or the District of Columbia.

Marian Blank Horn, “Christensen v. United States,” 168 Fed. Cl. 263, 13 September 2023, pp. 126-127, Lexis.

According to plaintiffs, "the [Internal Revenue] Code need not expressly provide for a foreign tax credit if the foreign levy in question falls within the treaty definition of a creditable tax" because "what constitutes a United States income tax for purposes of the application of a treaty derives from the treaty's definition and not from domestic law."32 (emphasis in original; alteration added). Plaintiffs argue that "[d]omestic law therefore does not constitute an absolute limitation on the rights and entitlements that may be granted to treaty beneficiaries under the terms of a U.S. tax treaty." (alteration added). Plaintiffs state that "[t]he parties agree that the NIIT constitutes a United States income tax as defined in Article 2(1) and 2(2) of the French Treaty," and, therefore, "that when a treaty provides a definition of a covered tax, it is that definition, and not the more limited definition under United States or foreign law, that is applied." (alteration added).

Vivek Sehrawat, “Implementation of International Law in Indian Legal System,” vol. 31, no. 1, 2019, pp. 101, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=fjil.

Domestic law is the law applying within state or internal law of a state, as opposed to international law. The terms domestic law and municipal law are used interchangeably for the purpose of this Article.

John H. Currie, “Glossary,” in Public International Law, Irwin Law 2008, 2nd Ed., pp. 579.

Domestic law/legal system The law or legal system established within a state to govern events, transactions, and persons within or having a connection to that state; also internal, municipal, national, or local law/ legal system.

J. Janewa Osei-Tutu, “Intellectual Property Conversations: International & Domestic,” PrawfsBlawg, 15 April 2015, https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/04/intellectual-property-conversations-international-domestic-.html.

I think it is fair to say that international intellectual property is generally seen as distinct from general (i.e. domestic) intellectual property (IP), both in terms of scholarship and teaching. Thus, from what I gather, international intellectual property panels tend not to draw huge crowds during the annual IP scholars meetings. However, I see a fair amount of overlap between general IP scholarship and the international IP issues that some of us tend to explore. Among others, I see overlap when it comes to questions about the role of IP, the scope of IP rights, and whether the current international model and the mandated levels of intellectual property protection align with societal goals.

Chukwuemezie Charles Emejuo, “What Is Domestic Intellectual Property (IP) Law: An Introduction,” My IP Law Guide, 2020, pp. 4, https://myiplawguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WHAT-IS-DOMESTIC-IP-LAW-BY-C-C.-EMEJUO.pdf.

Domestic IP laws are the IP laws that apply locally to a state. We talked about the various legislative enactments that are in force in Ghana, Nigeria and the Cameroon’s IP Law. There might be similarities in these laws, however, the laws of every state must be referred to once an IP protection is sought in that jurisdiction.

Chukwuemezie Charles Emejuo, “What Is Domestic Intellectual Property (IP) Law: An Introduction,” My IP Law Guide, 2020, pp. 1, https://myiplawguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WHAT-IS-DOMESTIC-IP-LAW-BY-C-C.-EMEJUO.pdf.

In understanding what Domestic IP Law means, we have to understand the context in which the word “domestic” is used. The English electronic dictionary defines domestic to mean “of or relating to home” and “internal to a specific country”. Adopting this definition, “domestic” qualifies activities peculiar to a locality which is home to some persons. Thus, an opposite of “domestic” will be “foreign” or “international”.

Kellie Kunkle, “The Essential Role of Intellectual Property Law: Protecting Creators and Owners,” INTIPSA, 23 August 2023, https://www.intipsa.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-intellectual-property-law.

Intellectual property (IP) law is a complex and ever-evolving field, with different rules and regulations governing different countries. It is essential to comprehend the distinction between domestic and international IP law to guarantee that your IP rights are secured. Domestic IP law is the set of laws that control intellectual property inside a particular nation. These laws are typically set up by the legislature of that nation and are intended to secure the privileges of people and organizations to their intellectual property.

Gregory N. Mandel, “Institutional Fracture in Intellectual Property Law: The Supreme Court Versus Congress,” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 102, 2017, pp. 809, https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mandel_MLR.pdf.

The primary variable for analysis is whether a given Supreme Court decision or legislative action strengthened or weakened intellectual property protection. Consistent with prior research in this context, strengthened versus weakened refers to the extent of protection afforded to the intellectual property rights owner.11 Accordingly, Supreme Court decisions that make it easier to acquire intellectual property rights; broaden the scope of intellectual property protection; make it easier to prove infringement; or strengthen remedies for infringement are all considered to strengthen intellectual property protection. Decisions that have the opposite effects weaken protection.12

Gregory N. Mandel, “Institutional Fracture in Intellectual Property Law: The Supreme Court Versus Congress,” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 102, 2017, pp. 804, https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mandel_MLR.pdf.

Recent legislative and judicial actions concerning intellectual property law reveal several stark trends. Congress has been remarkably hospitable to stronger intellectual property rights. Congress passed forty-three intellectual property laws during the time period in question. Of those that affected the substantive strength of intellectual property rights, over 80% made rights stronger.1 These laws made it easier to acquire intellectual property rights, broadened the scope of protection, and strengthened enforcement. The Supreme Court’s intellectual property jurisprudence, however, has moved largely in the opposite direction. The Court decided forty-four intellectual property cases from the October 2002–2003 Term through the October 2015–2016 Term, and of those that substantively affected the extent of rights, two-thirds weakened protection.

Gregory N. Mandel, “Institutional Fracture in Intellectual Property Law: The Supreme Court Versus Congress,” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 102, 2017, pp. 809, https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mandel_MLR.pdf.

The primary variable for analysis is whether a given Supreme Court decision or legislative action strengthened or weakened intellectual property protection. Consistent with prior research in this context, strengthened versus weakened refers to the extent of protection afforded to the intellectual property rights owner.11 Accordingly, Supreme Court decisions that make it easier to acquire intellectual property rights; broaden the scope of intellectual property protection; make it easier to prove infringement; or strengthen remedies for infringement are all considered to strengthen intellectual property protection. Decisions that have the opposite effects weaken protection.12