Law Commons^™

Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases, Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza

Working Papers

Imagine the following advertisement popping up on Craigslist: "FEDERAL JUDGE SEEKS PATENT CASES! (Waco) — Former patent litigator, recently appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, longs for the intellectual challenge of a good patent fight. Can promise special procedural rules, efficient discovery, and speedy trials. Dismissal, stay, or transfer of case extremely unlikely. File in Waco and get the patent court you've always dreamed of!"That probably seems bizarre. Still — and startlingly — it accurately portrays what’s happening right now in the Western District of Texas. One judge, appointed to the court less than …

Brief For The R Street Institute And Engine Advocacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an inventor may not obtain a patent on an invention that has been “on sale” for more than a year. The question is whether, from this so-called on-sale bar, certain classes of sales should be exempted— sales under a confidentiality agreement, in Petitioner’s view; and sales to those other than the ultimate customers, according to the government.

Brief For The R Street Institute And Engine Advocacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an inventor may not obtain a patent on an invention that has been “on sale” for more than a year. The question is whether, from this so-called on-sale bar, certain classes of sales should be exempted— sales under a confidentiality agreement, in Petitioner’s view; and sales to those other than the ultimate customers, according to the government.

Brief Of Public Knowledge, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Engine Advocacy, And The R Street Institute As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Where Congress places conditions upon the patent grant in furtherance of the public interest in individual liberty, Congress acts at the apex of its powers under the Constitution. Inter partes review is a legislative condition on the patent grant, designed for an innovative modern world, specifically crafted to dispose of erroneously issued patents that burden the public. It is the traditional place of Congress to make these balanced political judgments, and Article III poses no barrier to Congress executing its Article I obligation to protect the public by limiting patents.

At&T V. Microsoft: A District Judge's Perspective, William H. Pauley Iii

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Competition For Patent Cases, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The traditional academic explanation for forum shopping is simple: litigants prefer to file cases in courts that offer some substantial advantage — either legal or procedural — over all other courts. But the traditional explanation fails to account for competition for litigants among courts. This Article suggests that forum shopping in patent law is driven in part by the creation of procedural and administrative distinctions among courts that are designed to attract, or in some cases to repel, patent litigants.

This Article makes two primary contributions to the literature, one theoretical and one normative. First, it theorizes that judicial competition …

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 …

The America Invents Act Makes U.S. One Step Closer To First-To-File System, Aaron Gleaton

Intellectual Property Brief

No abstract provided.

2009 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Donald R. Dunner, Bryan C. Diner, Esther H. Lim, Troy E. Grabow, Tina E. Hulse, Joyce Craig

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

What The Federal Circuit Can Learn From The Supreme Court-And Vice Versa, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Increased Market Power As A New Secondary Consideration In Patent Law A Review Of Recent Decisions Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit, Andrew Blair-Stanek

American University Law Review

Courts have developed several non-technical “secondary considerations” to help judges and juries in patent litigation decide whether a patent meets the crucial statutory requirement that a patent be non-obvious. This Article proposes a tenth secondary consideration to help judges and juries: increased market power. If a patent measurably increases its holders’ market power in the market into which it sells products or services, then that increase should weigh in favor of finding the patent non-obvious. Using increased market power incorporates the predictive benefits of several other secondary considerations, while often increasing the accuracy and availability of evidence. It would provide …

2008 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Court A Review Of Recent Decisions Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit: Area Summaries, Todd Zubler, Nina Tallon, Jamie Wisz, Jamaica Szeliga

American University Law Review

The United States Supreme Court took a slight breather from patent-law issues in 2008. After issuing three patent-law decisions in 2007 (including KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.), the Court issued just one patent-law decision in 2008—Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Despite the Supreme Court’s slower pace, however, the Court’s influence loomed large in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2008. In a number of cases, the Federal Circuit continued to work through the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent precedents, most notably KSR and the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay Inc. …

Does The Supreme Court Still Matter?, Timothy B. Dyk

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

2007 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Dean L. Fanelli, Victor N. Balancia, Robert J. Smyth, Carl P. Bretscher, Arthur M. Antonelli, Mark J. Sullivan, Kent E. Basson

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Circuit And The Supreme Court, Arthur J. Gajarsa, Lawrence P. Cogswell

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Sasha Mayergoyz, Michael F. Harte, David Mckone, Amanda J. Hollis, Peter Moore, Jennifer L. Travers

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Role Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Now That It Has Turned 21, Richard Linn

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

2003 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Paul Devinsky, Mark G. Davis

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Review Of The 1999 Patent Law Decisions Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit , Phil N. Makrogiannis

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Much Fuel To Add To The Fire Of Genius? Some Questions About The Repair/Reconstruction Distinction In Patent Law , Arthur J. Gajarsa, Evelyn Mary Aswad, Joseph S. Cianfrani

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Echoes Of Scientific Truth In The Halls Of Justice: The Standards Of Review Applied By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit In Patent-Related Matters , Lawrence M. Sung

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Survey Of Patent Law Decisions In The Federal Circuit: 1998 In Review , Robert J. Mcmanus, Cindy Ahn, Christina Karnakis, Rafael E. Rodriguez, Jacqueline D. Wright

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patent Claim Interpretation After Markman: How The Federal Circuit Interprets Claims , John M. Romary, Arie M. Michelson

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

1996 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit , Michael L. Leetzow, Jeffrey A. Berkowitz, Kenneth E. Horton, Robert L. Burns, Lionel M. Levenue, Maria L. Maebius

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Challenge Ahead: Increasing Predictability In Federal Circuit Jurisprudence For The New Century, Paul R. Michel

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.