Call for Papers: IPCLJ, Fall 2021 Edition

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal is open for submissions as of September 22, 2021 and will continue to accept submissions until November 19, 2021.

Content Requirements: We accept submission of unsolicited articles, notes, and papers via e-mail or postal service, focusing on the following topics and current issues:

  • Intellectual property law
  • Computer law
  • Privacy law
  • General technology law
  • Technology-related business law

Length: The Journal is committed to publishing work that is concise and readable. We strongly encourage submissions of fewer than 8,000 words, including footnotes (roughly 28 journal pages). Manuscript length may be a significant factor regarding consideration of the manuscript.

Citations: Citations must conform to the Twentieth Edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Failure to conform to the The Bluebook will be a significant factor against acceptance of the manuscript.

Abstract: Please include a short abstract with your submission.

Data: The Journal values the contributions of empirical and experimental studies to the legal literature, and accordingly takes special care to ensure transparency and reproducibility in papers that use methodologies typically employed by the social sciences. As such, authors of publications are expected to provide any datasets and experimental procedures not included in the text of the paper to the Journal for publication on our blog, unless an exception is made prior to acceptance. Authors are expected to provide the Journal with these materials before publication. Please note that we are able to consider the piece more quickly if the files are provided at the time of submission.

We consider each manuscript we receive using an extensive review process, which can take several weeks. If you have received an offer of publication from another journal, please request expedited review of your submission, and a representative from our editorial board will contact you as soon as possible. 

Interested professors, scholars, and authors should send an e-mail inquiry to and a representative from our editorial board will promptly provide you with writing guidelines and other details.

Thank you for your support as we continue to provide scholarship surrounding intellectual property, technology law, and other related fields of law.

Give Us Our Tech Data: The Military’s War Against Contractor Sustainment and Maintenance

[Carlos Plazas, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]

           As part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the United States government has budgeted a total of $242 billion for procurement, research, development, testing, and evaluation of new equipment for the United States military.[1] This quantity is outside the sustainment, maintenance, and operation costs of already existing equipment which total over $255 billion.[2] These numbers are not out of the ordinary for the U.S. government, which usually ranks at the top of defense spending amongst other countries.[3] What is relatively recent is the regulation surrounding the acquisition of new equipment, research, development, testing, and evaluation in conjunction with civilian organizations such as corporations or universities.[4]

Read More

An Increased Risk of Identity Theft Should Be Sufficient to Establish Standing in Federal Courts

[Hebeh Refaei, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]


            As online transactions and electronic storage of personal information occur more frequently, especially during the COVID19 pandemic, consumers should consider whether their claims could be heard in court when companies’ privacy protections are inadequate. Global eCommerce transactions increased by 20% from January 2019 through November 2019 and January 2020 through November 2020.[1] By volume, fraud attempts from 2019 and 2020 increased by 1.7%, and by value, fraud attempts increased by 3.4%.[2] One of the fundamental principles of the U.S. court system is that everyone should be allowed to have their day in court.[3] However, a plaintiff must have standing to be able to sue.[4] Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over “cases and controversies.”[5] To satisfy the requirements under Article III, a plaintiff must establish standing.[6] The Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits have ruled that an increased risk of identity theft can establish standing to sue an organization that exposed individuals’ personal data to hackers.[7] However, the Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that plaintiffs who claim they were harmed by an increased risk of identity theft do not have standing to file a suit against an entity that exposed the plaintiffs to the identity theft.[8] The circuits that reject the existence of standing in these cases fail to fully consider the consequences of these rulings.

Read More

Setting the Bar(re): The Intellectual Property and Legal Standard Behind Boutique Fitness Classes

[Morgan Hartgrove, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]


            Over the past decade, the fitness industry has experienced exponential growth and development, especially the boutique fitness industry.[1] From 2013 to 2017, boutique studio memberships grew by 121%.[2]

            Unlike a traditional gym, boutique fitness usually involves a niche class (e.g., cycling, barre, or interval-type classes) in a smaller studio.[3] Boutique fitness thrives from offering a unique experience to clients with the opportunity to become part of a fitness and studio community.[4] Besides providing specialized workouts, boutique fitness classes offer an avenue for socialization and allow customers to participate in something unique and trendy.[5]

Read More

We Like This Stock: The Confluence of Technology, Investing, and the Law

[Jacob Harrod, Contributing Member 2020-2021, Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal]


            A great disparity exists in the American financial markets, and now more than ever the gap between those with power and those without is evident. To be sure, a similar disparity exists throughout the world, in many countries.[1] One need look no further than the contrasting treatment of retail and institutional investors in a company’s initial public offering (IPO) process to see that there is an evident and systemic problem.[2] This Article, however, will focus on the United States stock market, and the relationship that exists between retail investors, institutional investors, and the government. 

Read More