Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Standards Of Proof In Civil Litigation: An Experiment From Patent Law, David L. Schwartz, Christopher B. Seaman
Standards Of Proof In Civil Litigation: An Experiment From Patent Law, David L. Schwartz, Christopher B. Seaman
Scholarly Articles
Standards of proof are widely assumed to matter in litigation. They operate to allocate the risk of error between litigants, as well as to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision. But despite their perceived importance, there have been relatively few empirical studies testing jurors’ comprehension and application of standards of proof, particularly in civil litigation. Patent law recently presented an opportunity to assess the potential impact of varying the standard of proof in civil cases. In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, the Supreme Court held that a patent’s presumption of validity can only be overcome by …
Is It Time For A Rule 11 For The Patent Bar?, Ralph D. Clifford
Is It Time For A Rule 11 For The Patent Bar?, Ralph D. Clifford
Faculty Publications
The failure to require the patent bar to be completely candid in its dealings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) is one of the reasons behind the patent quality problem in the United States. Although PTO regulations impose a duty of candor on both the patent applicant and his or he attorney, this duty of disclosure is limited to matters already known by the parties. The regulations impose no duty to become educated about the technology that underlies a claimed invention. Indeed, there are rational reasons why a patent applicant might seek an uneducated attorney and order him …
United States Of America: The Burden Of Proof In Tax Matters, Henry Ordower
United States Of America: The Burden Of Proof In Tax Matters, Henry Ordower
All Faculty Scholarship
This United States report responds to a questionnaire that the general reporters prepared for the 2011 meeting of the European Association of Tax Law Professors in Uppsala, Sweden, June 3-5, 2011. The report describes and analyzes the U.S. law on burden of proof and burden of production in tax matters in the context of tax law procedure, including the settlement function of appeals and information reporting, uncertain tax positions (Form UTP) and foreign accounts of U.S. taxpayers. This report also addresses the interplay of burden of proof and the anti-abuse provisions, including the “economic substance” clarification in section 7701(o) and …
Reconceptualizing The Burden Of Proof, Edward K. Cheng
Reconceptualizing The Burden Of Proof, Edward K. Cheng
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The preponderance standard is conventionally described as an absolute probability threshold of 0.5. This Essay argues that this absolute characterization of the burden of proof is wrong. Rather than focusing on an absolute threshold, the Essay reconceptualizes the preponderance standard as a probability ratio and shows how doing so eliminates many of the classical problems associated with probabilistic theories of evidence. Using probability ratios eliminates the so-called Conjunction Paradox, and developing the ratio tests under a Bayesian perspective further explains the Blue Bus problem and other puzzles surrounding statistical evidence. By harmonizing probabilistic theories of proof with recent critiques advocating …
“Reverse” Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions: A Proposed Solution For Medtronic, Megan M. La Belle
“Reverse” Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions: A Proposed Solution For Medtronic, Megan M. La Belle
Scholarly Articles
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. – the first patent case of the term – on November 5, 2013. The issue in Medtronic is whether the burden of proof in patent declaratory judgment actions should be on the patent owner to prove infringement or on the accused infringer to prove non-infringement. Ordinarily, the patent owner bears the burden of proving infringement and the declaratory posture of a suit does not shift that burden. In Medtronic, however, the Federal Circuit created an exception for “MedImmune-type” suits, meaning declaratory judgment actions …