Law Commons^™

Joinder Of Unrelated Infringers As Defendants In Patent Litigation Under The Jurisprudence Of The United States District Court For Eastern District Of Texas—A Critical Review, Ping-Hsun Chen

Ping-Hsun Chen

On September 16, 2011, the American patent system started a new era because of the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). 35 U.S.C. § 299 was enacted to limit district court’s power to permit joinder of unrelated infringers as defendants in a single lawsuit. Before that, district courts apply Rule 20 of the Federal Civil Procedure. The Eastern District of Texas had permitted joinder only because the same patent was infringed. By introducing § 299, Congress intended to abrogate such approach. Later, the Federal Circuit in In re EMC limited the practice of Rule 20 and required a …

A Survey Of Illinois Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2-619(A)., Wm. Dennis Huber

Wm. Dennis Huber

The paper examines the requirements of each section of Illinois Code of Civil Procedure Section 2-619(a) in greater depth by examining appellate and Illinois Supreme Court rulings in cases brought under each section of 2-619(a). It also analyzes the standards of review appellate courts apply under each section of 2-619(a). Finally, because 619(a) motions require affidavits in support of the motion, it is also necessary to consider the nature and sufficiency of affidavits.

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

The Brazilian Appellate Procedure Through Common Law Lenses: How American Standards Of Review May Help Improve Brazilian Civil Procedure, Cesar Zucatti Pritsch

Cesar Zucatti Pritsch

In this article, we address a flaw in Brazilian civil procedure observed in our practice as a Federal Labor Judge in Brazil, an issue that may be addressed by limiting appellate review in a similar fashion as the American courts do, using standards of appellate review.

In Brazil, appellate courts tend to ignore the lower court’s decisions, replacing them for the ruling they would have made had they been the original decision makers. A simple disagreement with the lower court’s findings of fact or discretionary rulings, no matter how reasonable, is sufficient grounds for reversal.

The lack of standards of …

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

The Curious, Perjurious Requirements Of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(B)(3)., Wm. Dennis Huber

Wm. Dennis Huber

A 2010 survey of Illinois Civil Procedure discussed recent amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules that apply to civil practice issues.1 The survey began with Notices of Appeal and a substantial part of the survey of Notices of Appeal was devoted to Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.2 The purpose of this Article is to examine in greater depth the requirements of filing notices of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(3) and the corresponding proof of service of Rule 373.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(3) has what can only be called “curious, perjurious requirements.” They are …