Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (2)
- Intellectual property (2)
- 17 U.S.C. §505 (1)
- Attorney's fees (1)
- Avoiding confusion (1)
-
- Bad faith (1)
- Brandeis (1)
- Choice of law (1)
- Construction of a patent (1)
- Copyright Act (1)
- Copyright infringement (1)
- Counterclaim (1)
- Court's discretion in considering extrinsic evidence (1)
- Court's judicial tools for claim interpretation (1)
- Deference (1)
- Eleventh Circuit (1)
- Erie (1)
- Extrinsic evidence in patent claim interpretation (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Federal Circuit's Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic (1)
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fee shifting (1)
- Finding of law (1)
- Frivolous claim (1)
- Holmes (1)
- Inc. (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (1)
- Patent (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Brandeis’S I.P. Federalism: Thoughts On Erie At Eighty, Joseph S. Miller
Brandeis’S I.P. Federalism: Thoughts On Erie At Eighty, Joseph S. Miller
Scholarly Works
Justice Brandeis is, in intellectual property law’s precincts, most famous for his lone dissent in International News Service v. Associate Press, the misappropriation case one can find in virtually every i.p. survey casebook (and many property law casebooks as well). But in the wider legal world, Brandeis is likely most famous for his earthquake opinion in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. Do Brandeis’s opinions in these two cases speak to each other? Can considering them together inform broader reflections on the texture of our federalism in the i.p. context? This piece, prepared in connection with an “Erie at Eighty” conference …
Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …
Extrinsic Evidence In Patent Claim Interpretation: Understanding The Post-Markman Confusion, Karl Koster
Extrinsic Evidence In Patent Claim Interpretation: Understanding The Post-Markman Confusion, Karl Koster
Journal of Intellectual Property Law
No abstract provided.
Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit's Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, Adam J. Fitzsimmons
Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit's Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, Adam J. Fitzsimmons
Georgia Law Review
Litigants commonly struggle to balance the need to comply with discovery requests and the desire to protect valuable trade secrets. Protective orders to help strike that balance. Questions arise, however, when one of the parties violates that protective order and discloses the opponent's confidential information. Chiefly, what remedies are available for a party whose invaluable intellectual property has been disclosed? At least one circuit has held the most common sanction, payment of attorney's fees, is unavailable for a violation of a protective order. Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) governs sanctions for violations of discovery orders, but the text …
Adrift On A Sea Of Uncertainty: Preserving Uniformity In Patent Law Post-Vornado Through Deference To The Federal Circuit, Larry D. Thompson
Adrift On A Sea Of Uncertainty: Preserving Uniformity In Patent Law Post-Vornado Through Deference To The Federal Circuit, Larry D. Thompson
Scholarly Works
Congress created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982, and granted that court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil actions arising under patent law. Congress's primary goals in creating the Federal Circuit were to produce a more uniform patent jurisprudence and to reduce forum shopping based on favorable patent law. But in the 2002 decision of Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, the Supreme Court held that patent counterclaims alone could not create Federal Circuit jurisdiction. This decision not only overruled the Federal Circuit's longstanding jurisdictional rule, but also opened the door for Regional …