Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Congress (2)
- Federal courts (2)
- Infringement (2)
- Patent (2)
- Appeals (1)
-
- Appellate system (1)
- Application (1)
- Article III (1)
- Chevron (1)
- Chevron defense (1)
- Constitutional (1)
- Constitutional change (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
- Demand letter (1)
- District courts (1)
- Dockets (1)
- E-Government Act of 2002 (1)
- Empirical (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Federal-question jurisdiction (1)
- Filing (1)
- Functional claiming (1)
- Grable (1)
- Judge Antonin Scalia’s (1)
- Judicial deference (1)
- Judicial law (1)
- Judiciary (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
“Government By Injunction,” Legal Elites, And The Making Of The Modern Federal Courts, Kristin Collins
“Government By Injunction,” Legal Elites, And The Making Of The Modern Federal Courts, Kristin Collins
Faculty Scholarship
The tendency of legal discourse to obscure the processes by which social and political forces shape the law’s development is well known, but the field of federal courts in American constitutional law may provide a particularly clear example of this phenomenon. According to conventional accounts, Congress’s authority to regulate the lower federal courts’ “jurisdiction”—generally understood to include their power to issue injunctions— has been a durable feature of American constitutional law since the founding. By contrast, the story I tell in this essay is one of change. During the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, many jurists considered the federal …
(In)Valid Patents, Paul Gugliuzza
(In)Valid Patents, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Increasingly, accused infringers challenge a patent’s validity in two different forums: in litigation in federal court and in post-issuance review at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These parallel proceedings have produced conflicting and controversial results. For example, in one recent case, a district court rejected a challenge to a patent’s validity and awarded millions of dollars in damages for infringement. The Federal Circuit initially affirmed those rulings, ending the litigation over the patent’s validity. In a subsequent appeal about royalties owed by the infringer, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the entire judgment — including the validity ruling and damages …
Regulating Patent Assertions, Paul Gugliuzza
Regulating Patent Assertions, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Recent years have seen a proliferation of statutes regulating and lawsuits challenging patent enforcement conduct. The Federal Circuit, however, has held that acts of patent enforcement are illegal only if there is clear and convincing evidence both that the patent holder’s infringement allegations were objectively baseless and that the patent holder knew or should have known its allegations were baseless. This chapter summarizes recent efforts by state governments and the federal government to control patent enforcement behavior, questions the broad immunity the Federal Circuit has conferred on patent holders, and seeks to improve pending federal legislation governing patent enforcement. In …
The Proposed Separation Of Powers Restoration Act Goes Too Far, Jack M. Beermann
The Proposed Separation Of Powers Restoration Act Goes Too Far, Jack M. Beermann
Shorter Faculty Works
If passed, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act would require federal courts conducting judicial review of agency action to decide “de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules.” Although I have long been highly critical of Chevron, see, e.g., Jack M. Beermann, End the Failed Chevron Experiment Now: How Chevron Has Failed and Why It Can and Should be Overruled, 42 Conn. L. Rev. 9 (2010), and also have misgivings about Auer deference, I fear that the proposed Act goes too far in completely eliminating deference to agency legal determinations.
Early Filing And Functional Claiming, Paul Gugliuzza
Early Filing And Functional Claiming, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
A major problem in the patent system is that many patents claim far more than the patentee actually invented. In his perceptive article, Ready for Patenting, Mark Lemley argues that this overclaiming is caused in part by legal doctrines that encourage inventors to file a patent application as early as possible, often before — or even instead of — building their invention. Patents issued from early-filed applications, Lemley argues, tend to be overly broad because the applicant does not yet know how the invention actually works.
This response essay, part of the Boston University Law Review’s symposium on Notice Failure …
Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Faculty Scholarship
Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.4 But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.
The existence of a submerged body …
On Getting It Right: Remembering Justice Antonin Scalia, Gary S. Lawson
On Getting It Right: Remembering Justice Antonin Scalia, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
In the summer of 1985, when then-Judge Antonin Scalia’s three law clerks were finishing their term at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, we1 gave him a plaque emblazoned with the phrase, “It’s hard to get it right.” That was a phrase that Judge, and later Justice, Scalia’s law clerks heard often—never in anger, never in rebuke, but always as a reminder (often accompanied by a wry smile) that . . . well, sometimes it’s hard to get it right.
Litigation: Time To Revisit Chevron Difference, Jack M. Beermann, Charles J. Cooper, Thomas W. Merrill, Amy Wildermuth, Don R. Wildermouth
Litigation: Time To Revisit Chevron Difference, Jack M. Beermann, Charles J. Cooper, Thomas W. Merrill, Amy Wildermuth, Don R. Wildermouth
Faculty Scholarship
Article is a transcript from the 2014 National Lawyers Convention panel on Millennials, Equity, and the Rule of Law. A video recording of the panel can be viewed here.
JUSTICE DON WILLETT: ... because Chevron deference is kind of like bacon. Some people like their Chevron deference rigid and crisp. Other people like it a little squishy and a little bendable. A few people dislike it altogether, no matter how it's served. But Chevron' is now thirty years old, older than a number of people in the audience today, and a lot has changed. The regulatory state …