Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Boston University School of Law (13)
- University of Michigan Law School (8)
- University of New Hampshire (6)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (6)
- American University Washington College of Law (4)
-
- Penn State Dickinson Law (3)
- University of Richmond (3)
- University of Georgia School of Law (2)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (2)
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Emory University School of Law (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Southern Methodist University (1)
- Syracuse University (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (1)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (15)
- Articles (9)
- All Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (3)
-
- Faculty Scholarly Works (3)
- Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Scholarly Articles (3)
- Scholarly Works (2)
- Akron Law Faculty Publications (1)
- College of Law - Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Faculty Articles (1)
- Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (1)
- Working Papers (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 57
Full-Text Articles in Law
Update On Patent-Related Cases In Computers And Electronics, Karishma Jiva Cartwright, Timothy T. Hsieh, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Update On Patent-Related Cases In Computers And Electronics, Karishma Jiva Cartwright, Timothy T. Hsieh, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Articles
This paper provides an overview of patent cases relating to computer and electronics technology that were not taken up by the Supreme Court during the October 2022 term. As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari in any patent-related cases for its October 2021 Term. The Court has, however, called for the views of the Solictor General in four cases, indicating higher interest and raising the possibility that one or more of these cases may appear on the Court's merits docket for the October 2022 Term. Additionally, though the Court denied certiorari in Baxter v. Becton, Dickinson, …
An Inside History Of The Burger Court's Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence, Christopher B. Seaman, Sheena X. Wang
An Inside History Of The Burger Court's Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence, Christopher B. Seaman, Sheena X. Wang
Scholarly Articles
Patent eligibility is one of the most important and controversial issues in intellectual property law. Although the relevant constitutional and statutory text is extremely broad, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of patentable eligibility by creating exceptions for inventions directed to abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decisions on this issue over the past decade have created considerable uncertainty regarding the patentability of important innovations. As a result, numerous stakeholders have called for reform of the current rules regarding patent eligibility, and members of Congress have introduced legislation to amend the …
A Functional Approach To Judicial Review Of Ptab Rulings On Mixed Questions Of Law And Fact, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
A Functional Approach To Judicial Review Of Ptab Rulings On Mixed Questions Of Law And Fact, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Articles
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has long relied on active appellate review to bring uniformity and clarity to patent law. It initially treated the PTO the same as the federal district courts, reviewing its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Following reversal by the Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Zurko, the Federal Circuit began giving greater deference to PTO factual findings. But it continued to review the PTO’s legal conclusions de novo, while coding an expansive list of disputed issues in patent cases as legal conclusions, even when they …
Elite Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza
Elite Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Over the last twenty years, one of the most significant developments in intellectual property law has been the dramatic increase in the number of patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. That same time period has also seen the emergence of a small, elite group of lawyers specializing not in any particular area of substantive law but in litigation before the Supreme Court. In recent empirical work, I linked the Court’s growing interest in patent law to the more frequent participation of elite Supreme Court lawyers in patent cases, particularly at the cert. stage. Among other things, I found …
The Procedure Of Patent Eligibility, Paul Gugliuzza
The Procedure Of Patent Eligibility, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
A decade ago, the patent-eligible subject matter requirement was defunct. Several recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have made eligibility the most important issue in many patent cases. To date, debates over the resurgent doctrine have focused mainly on its substance. Critics contend that the Supreme Court’s case law makes patents too easy to invalidate and discourages innovation. Supporters emphasize that the Court’s decisions help eradicate the overly broad patents often asserted by so-called patent trolls.
Yet one important consequence of eligibility’s revival has been procedural. Because district courts often view eligibility to present a pure question of law, they are—for …
The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca
The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca
Law Faculty Scholarship
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a unique institution. Unlike other circuit courts, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is bound by subject area rather than geography, and it was created to address a unique set of problems specific to patent law. These characteristics have affected its institutional development and made the court one of the most frequently studied appellate courts. This chapter examines this development and describes the evolving qualities that have helped the Federal Circuit distinguish itself, for better or worse, as an institution.
This chapter begins with an overview of the concerns existing before creation of …
Rising Confusion About 'Arising Under' Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza
Rising Confusion About 'Arising Under' Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
By statute, all cases “arising under” patent law must be heard exclusively by the federal courts (not state courts) and, on appeal, by the Federal Circuit (not the twelve regional circuits). But not all cases involving patents “arise under” patent law. As recently as 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere need to apply patent law in, for example, a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer, is insufficient to trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held, for a case that does not involve claims of patent infringement to arise under patent law, the patent issue must be “important . …
Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley
Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley
Faculty Scholarship
Can an appellate court alter substantive law without writing an opinion? We attempt to answer that question by conducting a novel empirical investigation into how the Federal Circuit has implemented the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, the most recent in a series of Supreme Court decisions strengthening patent law’s patentable subject matter requirement. Our dataset includes each one of the Federal Circuit’s more than 100 decisions on patentable subject matter in the three years since Alice, including affirmances issued without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36.
Including those no-opinion affirmances, the Federal Circuit has found …
Quick Decisions In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza
Quick Decisions In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Patent litigation is notoriously expensive and time consuming. In the past decade, however, patent law has changed in many ways that expedite resolution of infringement disputes. This article identifies and evaluates this trend toward quick decisions in patent cases. Balancing the savings in litigation costs against the potential for error, the article defends many recent and controversial developments, including the Supreme Court’s invigoration of the patent eligible subject matter requirement, the new administrative proceedings created by the America Invents Act, and changes in the requirements for pleading patent infringement. These developments permit defendants to obtain rulings of invalidity or noninfringement …
Reining In A 'Renegade' Court: Tc Heartland And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson
Reining In A 'Renegade' Court: Tc Heartland And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Supreme Court tightened the venue requirement for patent cases, making it more difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a district court has venue over a defendant. Many commentators, however, view TC Heartland as merely a “reshuffling” of the district courts that receive patent cases. Whereas before the case, a large percentage of patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, now, after TC Heartland, various other U.S. district courts (principally, the District of Delaware) have experienced an increase in patent infringement filings. Some commentators are unconvinced that this …
Standing With A Bundle Of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine In Action, Christopher J. Morten
Standing With A Bundle Of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine In Action, Christopher J. Morten
Faculty Scholarship
This Article provides an overview of the Federal Circuit’s all substantial rights doctrine. Surveying decades of case law, this Article seeks to clarify this confusing area of the law and set out the essential rules for those engaged in patent licensing, patent assignment, and patent litigation. This Article begins by explaining why effective ownership of a patent is critical to standing, and then describes the framework through which courts determine whether a party is, in fact, in possession of all substantial rights and is therefore the effective owner. While there are many factors that courts may consider, certain rights take …
Teva And The Process Of Claim Construction, Lee Petherbridge Ph.D., R. Polk Wagner
Teva And The Process Of Claim Construction, Lee Petherbridge Ph.D., R. Polk Wagner
All Faculty Scholarship
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed an oft-discussed jurisprudential disconnect between itself and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: whether patent claim construction was “legal” or “factual” in nature, and how much deference is due to district court decisionmaking in this area. In this Article, we closely examine the Teva opinion and situate it within modern claim construction jurisprudence. Our thesis is that the Teva holding is likely to have only very modest effects on the incidence of deference to district court claim construction but that for unexpected reasons the …
Patent Injunctions On Appeal: An Empirical Study Of The Federal Circuit's Application Of Ebay, Christopher B. Seaman, Ryan T. Holte
Patent Injunctions On Appeal: An Empirical Study Of The Federal Circuit's Application Of Ebay, Christopher B. Seaman, Ryan T. Holte
Scholarly Articles
More than ten years after the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in eBay v. MercExchange, the availability of injunctive relief in patent cases remains hotly contested. For example, in a recent decision in the long-running litigation between Apple and Samsung, members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit divided sharply on whether an injunction was warranted to prevent Samsung from continuing to infringe several smartphone features patented by Apple. To date, however, nearly all empirical scholarship regarding eBay has focused on trial court decisions, rather than the Federal Circuit.
This Article represents the first …
How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law?, Paul Gugliuzza
How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law?, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a remarkable number of patent cases in the past decade, particularly as compared to the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence. No longer is the Federal Circuit “the de facto Supreme Court of patents,” as Mark Janis wrote in 2001. Rather, it seems the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of patents. In the article at the center of this symposium, Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit writes that the Supreme Court’s decisions “have had a major impact on patent law,” citing, among other evidence, the Court’s seventy percent reversal rate …
I Dissent: The Federal Circuit's "Great Dissenter," Her Influence On The Patent Dialogue, And Why It Matters, Daryl Lim
Faculty Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
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 …
Diagnostics Need Not Apply, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Diagnostics Need Not Apply, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Articles
Diagnostic testing helps caregivers and patients understand a patient's condition, predict future outcomes, select appropriate treatments, and determine whether treatment is working. Improvements in diagnostic testing are essential to bringing about the long-heralded promise of personalized medicine. Yet it seems increasingly clear that most important advances in this type of medical technology lie outside the boundaries of patent-eligible subject matter. The clarity of this conclusion has been obscured by ambiguity in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court concerning patent eligibility. Since its 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the Court has followed a discipline of limiting judicial exclusions from …
Empirical Studies Of Claim Construction, Jonas Anderson
Empirical Studies Of Claim Construction, Jonas Anderson
Working Papers
Patent claims define the scope of the patent right and hence are central to the operation of the patent system. Patent prosecutors devote substantial effort to crafting patent claims so as to maximize the scope of their right without “reading on” prior art (and thereby defeating novelty). Businesses seeking to enter a technology marketplace must be careful to avoid encroaching patent claims. Thus, when patentees enforce their rights, the interpretation of claim boundaries guides both validity and infringement analysis. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments (517 U.S. 370 (1996)), holding that “the construction of a patent, …
Patent Stewardship, Choice Of Law, And Weighing Competing Interests, David O. Taylor
Patent Stewardship, Choice Of Law, And Weighing Competing Interests, David O. Taylor
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
Xuan-Thao Nguyen’s recent article, "In the Name of Patent Stewardship: The Federal Circuit’s Overreach into Commercial Law", is important for at least two potential reasons that Nguyen herself highlights. First, to the extent that the Federal Circuit’s decisions related to commercial law differ from state courts’ decisions related to commercial law, it might call into question the Federal Circuit’s competency with respect to commercial law. And, second, it certainly highlights something that practitioners might need to know to adapt their advice and strategies for reaching their clients’ desired ends. But Nguyen’s critique is important for a third reason. Assuming the …
Living With Monsanto, 2015 Mich. St. L. Rev. 559 (2015), Daryl Lim
Living With Monsanto, 2015 Mich. St. L. Rev. 559 (2015), Daryl Lim
Faculty Scholarly Works
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw …
Living With Monsanto, Daryl Lim
Living With Monsanto, Daryl Lim
Faculty Scholarly Works
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw …
Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson
Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.
Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …
Against Settlement Of (Some) Patent Cases, Megan M. La Belle
Against Settlement Of (Some) Patent Cases, Megan M. La Belle
Scholarly Articles
For decades now, there has been a pronounced trend away from adjudication and toward settlement in civil litigation. This settlement phenomenon has spawned a vast critical literature beginning with Owen Fiss’s seminal work, Against Settlement. Fiss opposes settlement because it achieves peace rather than justice, and because settlements often are coerced due to power and resource imbalances between the parties. Other critics have questioned the role that courts play (or ought to play) in settlement proceedings, and have argued that the secondary effects of settlement – especially the lack of decisional law – are damaging to our judicial system. Still, …
Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson
Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …
Saving The Federal Circuit, Paul Gugliuzza
Saving The Federal Circuit, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
In a recent, attention-grabbing speech, the Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit, Diane Wood, argued that Congress should abolish the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. Exclusive jurisdiction, she said, provides too much legal uniformity, which harms the patent system. In this response to Judge Wood’s thoughtful speech, I seek to highlight two important premises underlying her argument, neither of which is indisputably true.
The first premise is that the Federal Circuit actually provides legal uniformity. Judge Wood suggests that, due to the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, patent doctrine is insufficiently “percolated,” meaning that it lacks mechanisms through which …
Patent Law Federalism, Paul Gugliuzza
Patent Law Federalism, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Most lawsuits arising under federal law can be filed in either state or federal court. Patent suits, however, may be filed only in federal court. Why do patent cases receive exceptional treatment? The usual answer is that federal courts, unlike state courts, provide uniformity and expertise in patent matters. This Article analyzes whether exclusive jurisdiction actually serves those policy aims and concludes that the uniformity-expertise rationale is overstated. If exclusive federal patent jurisdiction is to be justified, attention must also be given to pragmatic considerations, such as the respective quality of state and federal trial courts, the courts’ ability to …
The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul Gugliuzza
The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court’s power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court’s federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …
Prometheus Rebound: Diagnostics, Nature, And Mathematical Algorithms, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Prometheus Rebound: Diagnostics, Nature, And Mathematical Algorithms, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Articles
The Supreme Court’s decision last Term in Mayo v. Prometheus left considerable uncertainty as to the boundaries of patentable subject matter for molecular diagnostic inventions. First, the Court took an expansive approach to what counts as an unpatentable natural law by applying that term to the relationship set forth in the challenged patent between a patient’s levels of a drug metabolite and the indication of a need to adjust the patient’s drug dosage. And second, in evaluating whether the patent claims add enough to this unpatentable natural law to be patent eligible, the Court did not consult precedents concerning the …
Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, Paul Gugliuzza
Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
Thirty years ago, Congress created the Federal Circuit for the overriding purpose of bringing uniformity to patent law. Yet less than half of the court’s cases are patent cases. Most Federal Circuit cases involve veterans benefits, government-employment actions, government contracts, and other matters. Although existing literature purports to study the Federal Circuit as an institution, these projects focus largely on the court’s patent cases. This Article, by contrast, considers whether the court’s nonpatent docket might affect the development of patent law and whether the court’s specialization in patent law has consequences for how it decides nonpatent cases.
These inquiries result …
Pluralism On Appeal, Paul Gugliuzza
Pluralism On Appeal, Paul Gugliuzza
Faculty Scholarship
In a thoughtful response to my article, Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, Ori Aronson notes that judges “work in context, be it social, cultural, or...institutional,” and that “context matters” to their decisions. Indeed, the primary aim of my article was to spur a conversation about the context in which the judges of the Federal Circuit — who have near plenary control over U.S. patent law — decide cases. That context includes many matters in narrow areas of law that bear little relation to the innovation and economic concerns that should animate patent law. To inject those concerns into the court’s province, …