Law Commons^™

Regulating Patent Assertions, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have seen a proliferation of statutes regulating and lawsuits challenging patent enforcement conduct. The Federal Circuit, however, has held that acts of patent enforcement are illegal only if there is clear and convincing evidence both that the patent holder’s infringement allegations were objectively baseless and that the patent holder knew or should have known its allegations were baseless. This chapter summarizes recent efforts by state governments and the federal government to control patent enforcement behavior, questions the broad immunity the Federal Circuit has conferred on patent holders, and seeks to improve pending federal legislation governing patent enforcement. In …

Two Faces Of Corporate Lobbying: Evidence From The Pharmaceutical Industry, Dongnyoung Kim, Incheol Kim, Omer Unsal

Finance Faculty Publications

This paper addresses two side effects of corporate lobbying on firm value in the pharmaceutical industry. Employing corporate lobbying and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval data for the period from 1998 to 2013, we find that lobbying firms have a 67.3 percent higher chance that their new prescription drugs are approved by the FDA than non-lobbying firms. On the 3-day window surrounding FDA approval announcements, lobbying firms yield, on average, a 1.1% higher market reaction than non-lobbying peers. However, we also find that insiders in lobbying firms abnormally purchase their own stocks prior to FDA approvals. These opportunistic …

Law Library Blog (October 2016): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Do Patent Challenges Increase Competition?, Stephen Yelderman

Journal Articles

This Article is the first to seriously scrutinize the claim that patent challenges lead to increased competition. It identifies a number of conditions that must hold for a patent challenge to provide this particular benefit, and evaluates the reasonableness of assuming that the pro-competitive benefits of patent challenges are generally available. As it turns out, there are a number of ways these conditions can and regularly do fail. This Article synthesizes legal doctrine, recent empirical scholarship, and several novel case studies to identify categories of challenges in which the potential benefits for competition are smaller than previously thought or, in …

The Reduced Form Of Litigation Models And The Plaintiff's Win Rate, Jonah B. Gelbach

All Faculty Scholarship

In this paper I introduce what I call the reduced form approach to studying the plaintiff's win rate in litigation selection models. A reduced form comprises a joint distribution of plaintiff's and defendant's beliefs concerning the probability that the plaintiff would win in the event a dispute were litigated; a conditional win rate function that tells us the actual probability of a plaintiff win in the event of litigation, given the parties' subjective beliefs; and a litigation rule that provides the probability that a case will be litigated given the two parties' beliefs. I show how models with very different-looking …

Newsroom: Good Reason For Secrecy On 38 Studios 8/12/2016, Niki Kuckes, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Golden Ratio Of Corporate Deal-Making, Christina M. Sautter

Journal Articles

The article discusses the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in the case 'Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc.' in which the court sale of corporate control, the target's board of directors has a duty to maximize stockholder value. Topics discussed include relationship between the deal protection devices and sale process; golden ratio of corporate deal-making; and the court's definition of an ideal merger and acquisition of a sale process.

Examining H.R. 2304, The "Speak Free Act", Alexander A. Reinert

Testimony

The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice issued the following testimony by Alexander A. Reinert, professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, involving a hearing on June 22, 2016, entitled "H.R. 2304, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015."

Current Trends In Consumer Junk Debt Buyer Litigation, Peter Holland

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Standing For (And Up To) Separation Of Powers, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Constitution requires federal agencies to comply with separation-of-powers (or structural) safeguards, such as by obtaining valid appointments, exercising certain limited powers, and being sufficiently subject to the President’s control. Who can best protect these safeguards? A growing number of scholars call for allowing only the political branches — Congress and the President — to defend them. These scholars would limit or end judicial review because private judicial challenges are aberrant to justiciability doctrine and lead courts to meddle in minor matters that rarely effect regulatory outcomes.

This Article defends the right of private parties to assert justiciable structural …

District Court: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Et Al. V. Becker Et Al.: Ruling On Remand (2016), Orinda Evans

Georgia State University Copyright Lawsuit

No abstract provided.

Judging Third-Party Funding, Victoria Sahani

Faculty Scholarship

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity—called a “third-party funder”—could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party’s legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that “judges currently have the power to obtain information about …

Ip Litigation In United States District Courts: 1994 To 2014, Matthew Sag

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of intellectual property (“IP”) litigation in U.S. federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent, and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of the records of more than 190,000 cases filed in federal courts and examines the subject matter, geographical, and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades.

This Article analyzes changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution. The key findings of this Article stem from an attempt …

Procedure And Pragmatism, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, prepared as part of a festschrift for the Italian scholar, Michele Taruffo, I portray him as a pragmatic realist of the sort described by Richard Posner in his book, Reflections on Judging. Viewing him as such, I salute Taruffo for challenging the established order in domestic and comparative law thinking about civil law systems, the role of lawyers, courts and precedent in those systems, and also for casting the light of the comparative enterprise on common law systems, particularly that in the United States. Speaking as one iconoclast of another, however, I also raise questions about Taruffo’s …

Spelling Out Spokeo, Craig Konnoth, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing doctrine. Critics have attacked the requirement as incoherent and unduly malleable. But the Supreme Court has continued to announce “injury in fact” as the bedrock of justiciability. In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court confronted a high profile and recurrent conflict regarding the standing of plaintiffs claiming statutory damages. It clarified some matters, but remanded the case for final resolution. This Essay derives from the cryptic language of Spokeo a six stage process (complete with flowchart) that represents the Court’s current equilibrium. We put …

Sleep: A Human Rights Issue, Clark J. Lee

Homeland Security Publications

Recognition of sleep as a human rights issue by governmental and legal entities (as illustrated by recent legal cases in the United States and India) raises the profile of sleep health as a societal concern. Although this recognition may not lead to immediate public policy changes, it infuses the public discourse about the importance of sleep health with loftier ideals about what it means to be human. Such recognition also elevates the work of sleep researchers and practitioners from serving the altruistic purpose of improving human health at the individual and population levels to serving the higher altruistic purpose of …

---

Go to article

Judge Shopping In The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Judge Rodney Gilstrap has a lot of patent cases on his docket. In fact, in 2015 there were 1,686 patent cases that were filed and assigned to Judge Gilstrap, an astronomical number for a single judge. Judge Gilstrap — one of eight federal judges who sit on the Eastern District of Texas — is so popular with patent plaintiffs that over one-fourth of all patent cases in the country are heard by him. This Article addresses the problems with allowing this judge shopping to occur. It reviews the scholarship on the topic that is almost universally opposed to judge shopping …

Agencies Running From Agency Discretion, J.B. Ruhl, Kyle Robisch

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Discretion is the root source of administrative agency power and influence, but exercising discretion often requires agencies to undergo costly and time-consuming pre-decision assessment programs, such as under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Many federal agencies thus have argued strenuously, and counter-intuitively, that they do not have discretion over particular actions so as to avoid such pre-decision requirements. Interest group litigation challenging such agency moves has led to a new wave of jurisprudence exploring the dimensions of agency discretion. The emerging body of case law provides one of the most robust, focused judicial examinations …

The Law And Economics Of Proportionality In Discovery, Jonah B. Gelbach, Bruce H. Kobayashi

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper analyzes the proportionality standard in discovery. Many believe the Advisory Committee's renewed emphasis on this standard has the potential to infuse litigation practice with considerably more attention to questions related to the costs and benefits of discovery. We discuss the history and rationale of proportionality's inclusion in Rule 26, adopting an analytical framework that focuses on how costs and benefits can diverge in litigation generally, and discovery in particular. Finally, we use this framework to understand the mechanics and challenges involved in deploying the six factors included in the proportionality standard. Throughout, we emphasize that the proportionality standard …

The Disconnected Juror: Smart Devices And Juries In The Digital Age Of Litigation, Patrick C. Brayer

Faculty Works

As we progress toward a post-digital age of individuals becoming one with technology, the legal profession will encounter an increasing number of jurors who have never known life without the Internet, social media or mobile devices. At the same time an increasing number of citizens are becoming dependent on digital technology, state supreme courts, state trial judges, and federal judges from across the nation are banning and confiscating cell phones, tablets, and other devices of connection to prevent jurors from engaging in misconduct. This article illuminates the unintended consequences that arise when courts remove from a sitting juror an individual …

The Subterranean Counterrevolution: The Supreme Court, The Media, And Litigation Retrenchment, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang

All Faculty Scholarship

This article is part of a larger project to study the counterrevolution against private enforcement of federal law from an institutional perspective. In a series of articles emerging from the project, we show how the Executive, Congress and the Supreme Court (wielding both judicial power under Article III of the Constitution and delegated legislative power under the Rules Enabling Act) fared in efforts to reverse or dull the effects of statutory and other incentives for private enforcement. An institutional perspective helps to explain the outcome we document: the long-term erosion of the infrastructure of private enforcement as a result of …

Llcs And The Private Ordering Of Dispute Resolution, Peter Molk, Verity Winship

UF Law Faculty Publications

An emerging question in U.S. business law is how the organizational documents of a business entity set the rules for resolving internal disputes. This practice is routine in commercial contracts, which may specify where or how disputes must be resolved. Recent use of litigation provisions in corporation charters and bylaws have sparked controversy, ultimately leading to legislative action to preserve shareholder suits from contractual waiver. Yet despite accounting for the majority of business organizations and sharing features with corporations, non-corporate business entities and their internal dispute resolution process have been largely ignored. How do these non-corporate entities set ex ante …

Lawyers, Power, And Strategic Expertise, Colleen F. Shanahan, Anna E. Carpenter, Alyx Mark

Faculty Scholarship

The only sound in a courtroom is the hum of the ventilation system. It feels as if everyone in the room is holding their breath …. Litigants are uneasy in the courthouse, plaintiffs and defendants alike. They fidget. They keep their coats on. They clutch their sheaves of paper-rent receipts and summonses, leases and bills. You can always tell the lawyers, because they claim the front row, take off their jackets, lay out their files. It's not just their ease with the language and the process that sets them apart. They dominate the space.

This empirical study analyzes the experience …

Panel 2: Types Of Litigation Funding, Geoffrey P. Miller, Maya Steinitz, Joshua Schwadron, Bradley Wendel, Michael Faure, Jef De Mot, Travis Lenkner

Faculty Scholarship

This is a transcript from the second panel of the 2015 NYU School of Law conference: Litigation Funding: The Basics and Beyond.

Panel Two

The second panel will build on the basics. Participants will explain and discuss different subcategories of funding, each of which may raise different conceptual, practical and/or regulatory concerns.

Panelists:

• Geoffrey Miller, New York University School of Law (Moderator)
• Maya Steinitz, University of Iowa College of Law
• Joshua Schwadron, Founder and CEO, Mighty
• Bradley Wendel, Cornell Law School
• Michael G. Faure, Maastricht University & Rotterdam University, the Netherlands
• Jef De Mot, Ghent University
• Travis Lenkner, Gerchen Keller …

Secret Jurisdiction, Irina D. Manta, Cassandra Burke Robertson

Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship

So-called "confidentiality creep" after the events of 9/11 has given rise to travel restrictions that lack constitutionality and do nothing to improve airline security. The Executive Branch's procedures for imposing such restrictions rely on several layers of secrecy: a secret standard for inclusion on the no-fly list, secret procedures for nominating individuals to the list, and secret evidence to support that decision. This combination results in an overall system we call "secret jurisdiction," in which individuals wanting to challenge their inclusion on the list are unable to learn the specific evidence against them, the substantive standard for their inclusion on …