Intellectual Property

Cameron v. Arizona Board of Regents, 2011 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1129 (2011), petition for review denied, 2012 Ariz. LEXIS 220 (2012).

This case concerns Theresa Cameron, a tenured professor at Arizona State University. She was terminated after she was accused of and admitted to plagiarizing syllabi of other faculty in her own syllabi. Dr. Cameron filed suit, asking that she undergo a post-tenure review rather than termination. The AAUP filed an amicus brief in support of her petition for review, arguing that the punishment of termination was grossly disproportionate to the actions that Dr. Cameron took.

Cambridge University Press v. Becker, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123154 (N.D. Ga. 2012), appeal docketed, No. 12-14676 (11th Cir. Sept. 12, 2012).

This case concerns professors at Georgia State University who copied and distributed copyrighted works for use in their courses. The professors argue that their actions are considered fair use. The AAUP urged the court to side with GSU and argued that in cases where the materials encompass more than a modest excerpt, the use may nonetheless be transformative, and the failure to consider whether the use was transformative would burden or restrict countless highly expressive uses that have long been an essential teaching tool.

Pittsburg State University/Kansas NEA v. Kansas Board of Regents, PSU and PERB, 280 Kan. 408 (Kan. 2005)

This case involves a challenge by the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) to the Kansas Board of Regents’ proposed policy giving ownership of faculty intellectual property to the universities at which they work. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that intellectual property rights are not simply assumed to be work-for-hire belonging to the university and can be a subject of collective bargaining.

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al., 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011)

 
Petitioner Stanford University sued respondent Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. The research company responded by arguing it co-owned a patent based on a professor inventor's assignment, so the university lacked standing. This complex case has evolved into a broader battle over the patent rights of faculty members to their inventive work.