Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisdiction

University of Michigan Law School

Michigan Law Review

Corporations

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Troubled Waters Between U.S. And European Antitrust, D. Daniel Sokol Apr 2017

Troubled Waters Between U.S. And European Antitrust, D. Daniel Sokol

Michigan Law Review

Review of The Atlantic Divide in Antitrust: An Examination of US and EU Competition Policy by Daniel J. Gifford and Robert T. Kudrle.


Personal Jurisdiction Over Aliens In Patent Infringement Actions: A Uniform Approach Toward The Situs Of The Tort, David Wille Dec 1991

Personal Jurisdiction Over Aliens In Patent Infringement Actions: A Uniform Approach Toward The Situs Of The Tort, David Wille

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines current approaches to the question of personal jurisdiction over alien patent infringers. Part I describes personal jurisdiction requirements in the context of patent infringement suits against aliens. The leading case addressing these requirements has been interpreted differently by several courts, thus resulting in conflicting outcomes. Part II explains the current controversy over the locus of the tort of patent infringement. The three different modes of reasoning currently used by courts to determine the locus of the tort would allow immunity from suit for the alien in at least two hypothetical cases. This Part concludes that in order …


Federal Venue Under Section1392(A): The Problem Of The Multidistrict Defendant, Brent E. Johnson Nov 1986

Federal Venue Under Section1392(A): The Problem Of The Multidistrict Defendant, Brent E. Johnson

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that a broad construction of section 1392(a) which would allow Aunt Bea to bring suit in the Southern District of California where Mayberry alone resides is preferable to a narrow construction which would restrict Bea to the Northern District where both defendants reside. Part I of this Note maintains that the language of section 1392(a) is ambiguous and does not indicate the clear intent of Congress, despite assertions to the contrary by proponents of both the broad and narrow constructions of the statute. Part II demonstrates that a superficially relevant Supreme Court decision tending to support the …