Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
Enhancing Ongoing Royalties: The Inequitable Equitable Remedy, Layne S. Keele
Enhancing Ongoing Royalties: The Inequitable Equitable Remedy, Layne S. Keele
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams
Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes included, among other things, the abrogation of the Appendix of Forms, which contained templates for summons, complaints, answers, and other litigation documents. Prior to its abrogation, Form 18—a template for a “Complaint for Patent Infringement”—was widely utilized by patent plaintiffs in crafting infringement complaints. Form 18 was created during the Conley pleading regime, when conclusory allegations were generally sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the sample allegations in Form 18 were conclusory and bare-bones in nature. Under Conley, plaintiffs who followed this …
When An Idea Is More Than Just An Idea: Insurance Coverage Of Business Method Patent Infringements Suits Under Advertising Injury Provisions Of Commercial General Liability Policies, Grace N. Witte
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Commil Usa, Llc V. Cisco Systems: Joining Policy And Prose To Foster A Good Faith Analysis, Theresa E. Durante
Commil Usa, Llc V. Cisco Systems: Joining Policy And Prose To Foster A Good Faith Analysis, Theresa E. Durante
Maryland Law Review Online
No abstract provided.
Key Words And Tricky Phrases: An Analysis Of Patent Drafters' Attempts To Circumvent The Language Of 35 U.S.C. § 112, Stephen J. Stark
Key Words And Tricky Phrases: An Analysis Of Patent Drafters' Attempts To Circumvent The Language Of 35 U.S.C. § 112, Stephen J. Stark
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Patent Compensation Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, Vincent P. Tassinari
Patent Compensation Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, Vincent P. Tassinari
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court's Quiet Revolution In Induced Patent Infringement, Timothy R. Holbrook
The Supreme Court's Quiet Revolution In Induced Patent Infringement, Timothy R. Holbrook
Notre Dame Law Review
The Supreme Court over the last decade or so has reengaged with patent law. While much attention has been paid to the Court’s reworking of what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and enhancing tools to combat “patent trolls,” what many have missed is the Court’s reworking of the contours of active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Court has taken the same number of § 271(b) cases as subject matter eligibility cases—four. Yet this reworking has not garnered much attention in the literature. This Article offers the first comprehensive assessment of the Court’s efforts to define active …
The 2015 Changes To The Federal Rules Matter For Your Patent Case And Tech Business: Getting In The Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher, Matthew D'Amore
The 2015 Changes To The Federal Rules Matter For Your Patent Case And Tech Business: Getting In The Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher, Matthew D'Amore
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Medical Process Patents: Can We Live Without Them? Should We?, Lara L. Douglass
Medical Process Patents: Can We Live Without Them? Should We?, Lara L. Douglass
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
The Patent Reexamination Reform Act Of 1994: A New Era Of The Third Party Participation, Shannon M. Casey
The Patent Reexamination Reform Act Of 1994: A New Era Of The Third Party Participation, Shannon M. Casey
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Intel V. Ulsi System Technology, Mark J. Rozman
Intel V. Ulsi System Technology, Mark J. Rozman
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Limiting Downstream Effects Of Patent Licensing Activity In Software And Electronics: An Argument For Alienability Of Patent Licenses To Licensees' Business Successors, Anna A. Onley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Frustrating the ability to transfer ownership is costly, and non-creative entities (NCEs) may contribute to rising costs of innovation by contractually requiring their licensees to seek NCE consent to subsequent license transfers. One possible way of gradually limiting the reach of NCEs in this area is to expand the doctrine of patent misuse—which supports the unenforceability defense to patent infringement—to construe restraints on alienation of patent licenses as patent misuse. This narrowly tailored approach, discussed in this Note, minimizes the risk of negative impact on the patent system because it avoids the question of patent invalidity and does not seek …
Only A Pawn In The Game: Rethinking Induced Patent Infringement, W. Keith Robinson
Only A Pawn In The Game: Rethinking Induced Patent Infringement, W. Keith Robinson
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
A party that causes another to infringe a patent may be liable for induced infringement. Recently, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have interpreted the inducement statute in a way that may be problematic. For example, in a suit for induced patent infringement a plaintiff must show that an accused party had specific intent to cause infringement. The defendant can rebut allegations of induced infringement by showing that he had a good faith belief that he did not infringe the patent. However, a defendant’s good faith belief that the patent is invalid is no longer a defense to inducement. …
Brief Of Amici Curiae 56 Professors Of Law And Economics In Support Of Petition Of Writ Of Certiorari, John R. Allison, Margo Bagley, James Bessen, Jeremy Bock, Daniel H. Brean, Michael A. Carrier, Michael W. Carroll, Bernard Chao, Tun-Jen Chiang, Colleen V. Chien, Andrew Chin, Robert Cook-Deegan, Md, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Dr. Dieter Ernst, Samuel F. Ernst, Robin C. Feldman, Lee Fleming, Brian Frye, William Gallagher, Shubha Ghosh, Eric Goldman, Bronwyn H. Hall, Yaniv Heled, Christian Helmers, Joachim Henkel, Susan Helper, Tim Holbrook, Herbert Hovenkamp, William Hubbard, Dr. Xavier Jaravel, Dennis S. Karjala, Peter Lee, Mark A. Lemley, David K. Levine, David S. Levine, Doug Lichtman, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Orly Lobel, Brian Love, Phil Malone, Michael J. Meurer, Dr. Shawn Miller, Matthew Mitchell, Susan Barbieri Montgomery, Sean Pager, Arti K. Rai, Jacob H. Rooksby, Jorge R. Roig, Matthew Sag, Pamela Samuelson, Ana Santos Rutschman, Lea Bishop Shaver, Toshiko Takenaka, John L. Turner, Jennifer Urban, Eric Von Hippel
Brief Of Amici Curiae 56 Professors Of Law And Economics In Support Of Petition Of Writ Of Certiorari, John R. Allison, Margo Bagley, James Bessen, Jeremy Bock, Daniel H. Brean, Michael A. Carrier, Michael W. Carroll, Bernard Chao, Tun-Jen Chiang, Colleen V. Chien, Andrew Chin, Robert Cook-Deegan, Md, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Dr. Dieter Ernst, Samuel F. Ernst, Robin C. Feldman, Lee Fleming, Brian Frye, William Gallagher, Shubha Ghosh, Eric Goldman, Bronwyn H. Hall, Yaniv Heled, Christian Helmers, Joachim Henkel, Susan Helper, Tim Holbrook, Herbert Hovenkamp, William Hubbard, Dr. Xavier Jaravel, Dennis S. Karjala, Peter Lee, Mark A. Lemley, David K. Levine, David S. Levine, Doug Lichtman, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Orly Lobel, Brian Love, Phil Malone, Michael J. Meurer, Dr. Shawn Miller, Matthew Mitchell, Susan Barbieri Montgomery, Sean Pager, Arti K. Rai, Jacob H. Rooksby, Jorge R. Roig, Matthew Sag, Pamela Samuelson, Ana Santos Rutschman, Lea Bishop Shaver, Toshiko Takenaka, John L. Turner, Jennifer Urban, Eric Von Hippel
Faculty Scholarship
28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant …