Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Procedure Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure

The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro Oct 2017

The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro

Aaron Edlin

In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court considered "reverse payment" settlements of patent infringement litigation. In such a settlement, a patentee pays the alleged infringer to settle, and the alleged infringer agrees not to enter the market for a period of time. The Court held that a reverse payment settlement violates antitrust law if the patentee is paying to avoid competition. The core insight of Actavis is the Actavis Inference: a large and otherwise unexplained payment, combined with delayed entry, supports a reasonable inference of harm to consumers from lessened competition.This paper is an effort to assist courts and …


Actavis And Error Costs: A Reply To Critics, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro Oct 2017

Actavis And Error Costs: A Reply To Critics, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro

Aaron Edlin

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. provided fundamental guidance about how courts should handle antitrust challenges to reverse payment patent settlements. In our previous article, Activating Actavis, we identified and operationalized the essential features of the Court’s analysis. Our analysis has been challenged by four economists, who argue that our approach might condemn procompetitive settlements.As we explain in this reply, such settlements are feasible, however, only under special circumstances. Moreover, even where feasible, the parties would not actually choose such a settlement in equilibrium. These considerations, and others discussed in the reply, serve to confirm …


Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach For Applying Rule 11 (Working Paper), Young Jeon, Eric J. Rogers Dec 2013

Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach For Applying Rule 11 (Working Paper), Young Jeon, Eric J. Rogers

Youngsik Jeon

The existing Rule 11 of the FRCP can be immediately harnessed to help solve the patent troll, nuisance-lawsuit problem. Currently there is the perception that too many litigious entities, commonly referred to as “patent trolls,” are creating too much dead-weight economic waste in society. The popular view is that there has been an alarming rise in the number of patent trolls that make no products but try to monetize patents by filing dubious patent infringement lawsuits merely to extract money from commercially productive companies that actually make products and use technologies for society’s benefit. Defining “patent troll” is probably too …


Intellectual Property Defenses, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky Oct 2013

Intellectual Property Defenses, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Alex Stein

This Article demonstrates that all intellectual property defenses fit into three conceptual categories: general, individualized, and class defenses. A general defense challenges the validity of the plaintiff’s intellectual property right. When raised successfully, it annuls the plaintiff’s right and relieves not only the defendant, but also the entire world of the duty to comply with it. An individualized defense is much narrower in scope: Its successful showing defeats the specific infringement claim asserted by the plaintiff, but leaves the plaintiff’s right intact. Class defenses form an in-between category: They create an immunity zone for a certain group of users to …


The Relational Contingency Of Rights, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky Dec 2011

The Relational Contingency Of Rights, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Alex Stein

In this Article, we demonstrate, contrary to conventional wisdom, that all rights are relationally contingent. Our main thesis is that rights afford their holders meaningful protection only against challengers who face higher litigation costs than the rightholder. Contrariwise, challengers who can litigate more cheaply than a rightholder can force the rightholder to forfeit the right and thereby render the right ineffective. Consequently, in the real world, rights avail only against certain challengers but not others. This result is robust and pervasive. Furthermore, it obtains irrespectively of how rights and other legal entitlements are defined by the legislator or construed by …


Requirements Of A Valid Islamic Marriage Vis-À-Vis Requirements Of A Valid Customary Marriage In Nigeria, Olanike Sekinat Odewale Mrs Dec 2010

Requirements Of A Valid Islamic Marriage Vis-À-Vis Requirements Of A Valid Customary Marriage In Nigeria, Olanike Sekinat Odewale Mrs

Olanike Sekinat Adelakun

Marriage is a universal institution which is recognized and respected all over the world. As a social institution, marriage is founded on and governed by the social and religious norms of the society. Consequently, the sanctity of marriage is a well accepted principle in the world community .
Marriage could either be monogamous or polygamous in nature. A monogamous marriage has bee described as ‘…the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’ . A polygamous marriage on the other hand can be defined as a voluntary union for life of one …


An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical Analysis Of The 'Sword' Of State Sovereign Immunity In State-Owned Patents, Tejas N. Narechania Sep 2010

An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical Analysis Of The 'Sword' Of State Sovereign Immunity In State-Owned Patents, Tejas N. Narechania

Tejas N. Narechania

In 1999, the Supreme Court invoked state sovereign immunity to strike down provisions in the patent and trademark laws purporting to hold states liable for the infringement of these intellectual properties. These decisions ignited a series of criticisms, including allegations that sovereign immunity gives states an unfair advantage in the exercise of state-owned patent rights.
In particular, critics alleged two unfair advantages to state patentees. First, they alleged that states would favorably manipulate litigation. Second, they alleged that states would use their immunity from challenge to obtain broad patents or force private parties into licensing arrangements. An empirical study focusing …