Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Not Because They Are Brown, But Because Of Ea*: Why The Good Guys Lost In Rice V. Cayetano, And Why They Didn't Have To Lose, Gavin Clarkson
Not Because They Are Brown, But Because Of Ea*: Why The Good Guys Lost In Rice V. Cayetano, And Why They Didn't Have To Lose, Gavin Clarkson
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Part II of this Article therefore reviews the history of Native Hawaiians in the broader context of the history of federal Indian law, focusing on the vacillating congressional policies regarding Indians and how those policies almost always treated Indian tribes as political entities rather than ethnic communities. Part III reviews and analyzes the procedural history of the Rice case and its resolution by the Supreme Court. Part IV concludes with the argument that constitutionally-permissible alternative methodologies exist for accomplishing the same objective of self-determination for Native Hawaiians
Doctrine Of Equivalents: Is Festo The Right Decision For The Biomedical Industry., Faith S. Fillman
Doctrine Of Equivalents: Is Festo The Right Decision For The Biomedical Industry., Faith S. Fillman
St. Mary's Law Journal
The doctrine of equivalents, which Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. threatens to overturn, is an equitable doctrine and should therefore provide patentees and competitors equal and fair protection. Prior to Festo, the Federal Circuit used two approaches: the complete bar rule and the flexible bar rule. Under the complete bar rule, the author must completely copy the patented art for infringement to occur, this is otherwise known as literal infringement. In contrast, under the flexible bar rule, infringement can occur if the product is closely related to the prior art. Federal Circuits have officially adopted the complete …