Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Faculty Scholarship
The rise of administrative patent validity review since the America Invents Act has rested on an enormous expansion of Patent Office authority. A relatively little-known aspect of that authority is the agency's statutory ability to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals from adversarial proceedings in its own Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office has exercised this intervenor authority frequently and with specific apparent policy objectives, including where one of the adverse parties did not participate in the appeal. Moreover, until recently, there has been no constitutional inquiry into the Article III standing that the Patent Office must establish in …
Standing In The Way Of Our Goals: How The Best Interest Of The Child (Whatever That Means) Is Never Reached In Texas Due To Lack Of Standing For Third-Party Parents, Jessica Nation Holtman
Standing In The Way Of Our Goals: How The Best Interest Of The Child (Whatever That Means) Is Never Reached In Texas Due To Lack Of Standing For Third-Party Parents, Jessica Nation Holtman
Texas A&M Law Review
Currently in Texas, standing options for third-party nonparents seeking to file suits affecting the parent-child relationship (“SAPCRs”) are extremely limited. And, even though the standing options are codified, the evidence necessary to meet the threshold elements may be drastically different depending on the case’s location. These third parties, who have previously exercised parental responsibilities, must make showings to the court that most divorced parents could not make; and this is just for a chance to bring a claim in court. While this seems unfair, and Texas should absolutely resolve the split among its appellate courts, there is one extremely important …
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt
Texas A&M Law Review
Since a majority of Supreme Court justices created the abortion right in 1973, a troubling pattern has emerged: The Supreme Court has come to ignore—and even nullify—longstanding precedent and legal doctrines in the name of preserving and expanding the abortion right. And with a Supreme Court majority that is blithe to manipulate any doctrine or principle—no matter how deeply rooted in U.S. legal tradition—in the name of expansive abortion rights, it should come as no surprise that lower courts are following suit. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit fired up the “ad hoc nullification machine,” but this time, its victim of …
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …