	Introduction

Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens has not authored many opinions relating to intellectual property law, but those he has written reflect his interest in striking an appropriate balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and public access to the products of creative and inventive minds. This report examines Justice Stevens' opinions involving copyright law, patent law, and state sovereign immunity and patent infringement lawsuits. Fair Use and Consumer Electronics

For manufacturers of consumer electronics and personal computers, the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios is considered the "Magna Carta" of product innovation and the technology age. Sony's embrace of time-shifting as a "fair use" of copyrighted works has created a safe harbor from copyright infringement liability for developers and sellers of electronic devices that facilitate the recording, storage, and playback of copyrighted media, such as the digital video recorder (DVR and TiVo), portable music and video players (iPod), and personal computers. Justice Stevens authored the majority opinion that garnered the support of four other justices. Extension of Copyright Terms

The Copyright Clause of the Constitution authorizes Congress: "To promote the Progress of Science ... by securing for limited Times to Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings…." Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft , in which the Court upheld the CTEA by a vote of 7-2. Today more than 20,000 software patents are granted each year. In a 1978 case, Parker v. Flook , Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by five other justices, in which the Court rejected this attempt to runaround Benson . The opinion of the Court in Diamond v. Diehr was written by Justice Rehnquist, who had dissented in Flook . Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent in Diehr , joined by three other justices who were in the Flook majority. He argued that "[t]he broad question whether computer programs should be given patent protection involves policy considerations that this Court is not authorized to address." Patent Remedy Act

Congress passed the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Patent Remedy Act) in 1992. The language of the statute specifically and unequivocally abrogated state sovereign immunity and subjected the states to suits for monetary damages brought by individuals for violation of federal patent law. College Savings Bank argued that Congress had lawfully done so pursuant to the due process clause by ensuring an individual an adequate remedy in the case of a deprivation of property perpetrated by the state in the form of patent infringement. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by three other justices. He believed that the Patent Remedy Act was a proper exercise of Congress's power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent state deprivations of property without due process of law.
This report briefly surveys decisions of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens in intellectual property cases. An examination of Justice Stevens' written opinions relating to intellectual property law reveals a strong desire to ensure that the rights of intellectual property creators are balanced with the rights of the public to access creative and innovative works. No decision embodies this interest more than Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., a landmark copyright case issued in 1984 that paved the way for the development and sale of popular consumer electronics, such as the video recorder (VCR, DVR, TiVo), portable music and video players (iPod), personal computers, and other devices that permit the recording and playback of copyrighted content.
In addition, Justice Stevens issued a lengthy dissent in the 2003 case Eldred v. Ashcroft, in which he asserted that Congress lacked the power to pass a law that extended the term of existing copyrights by 20 years. Such a retroactive extension delays the entrance of copyrighted works into the public domain and, in Justice Stevens' opinion, is a violation of the Constitution's Copyright Clause that authorizes Congress to grant exclusive intellectual property rights to authors and artists for "limited Times."
In the area of patent law, Justice Stevens authored the majority opinion in the 1978 case Parker v. Flook that sought to severely restrict the availability of patent protection on inventions relating to computer software programs. Yet just three years later, the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Diehr effectively opened the door to the allowance of patents on some computer programs. Justice Stevens wrote a strongly worded dissent in Diehr in which he suggested that Congress would be better suited than the Court to address the policy considerations of allowing patent protection for computer programs. His written opinions in both of these cases reveal an interest in judicial restraint, not wanting to extend patent rights into areas that Congress had not contemplated.
Justice Stevens dissented from the 1999 opinion, Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank, in which a majority of the Court invalidated Congress's attempt to abrogate state sovereign immunity and authorize patent holders to file suits for monetary damages against states and state instrumentalities that infringe their patent rights. Justice Stevens believed that the 1992 Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act was a proper exercise of Congress's authority under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent state deprivations of property without due process of law, and he expressed his disagreement with the majority opinion's expansive protection of states' rights.