Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Copyright troll (2)
- Joinder (2)
- Patent (2)
- Actavis (1)
- Antitrust (1)
-
- BitTorrent (1)
- Copyright infringement (1)
- Copyright law (1)
- Drugs (1)
- FTC (1)
- Hatch-Waxman (1)
- Innovation (1)
- Instructions (1)
- Internet Service Providers (1)
- John Doe lawsuits (1)
- Jury (1)
- Licencing (1)
- Licensing (1)
- Limine (1)
- Limited ownership interest (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Methodology (1)
- Motion (1)
- Multi-defendant law suits (1)
- Paragraph IV (1)
- Patents (1)
- Patents & Technology (1)
- Pay for delay (1)
- Peer-to-peer file sharing (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Walk A Mile In The Shoes Of A Copyright Troll: Analyzing And Overcoming The Joinder Issue In Bittorrent Lawsuits, Kristina Unanyan
Walk A Mile In The Shoes Of A Copyright Troll: Analyzing And Overcoming The Joinder Issue In Bittorrent Lawsuits, Kristina Unanyan
The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law
This Comment analyzes the issues surrounding joinder of copyright infringers who use BitTorrent, explores how joinder can be used and limited to create a more viable solution for copyright holders and consumers, as well as, supplements the sparse regulations that encompass joinder to create a rule that accommodates this technological era. Part II explains Copyright Law and the procedural aspects of a copyright infringement suit and joinder of defendants. Part III delves into the history of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing lawsuits and provides an illustration of where case law rests today regarding P2P networks. Part IV describes the BitTorrent network and …
Pleading Patents: Predicting The Outcome Of Statutorily Heightening Pleading Standards, Arjun Rangarajan
Pleading Patents: Predicting The Outcome Of Statutorily Heightening Pleading Standards, Arjun Rangarajan
Duke Law & Technology Review
The tension between an extremely barebones Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Form 18 for patent infringement lawsuits and Supreme Court case law through Twombly and Iqbal has made it difficult for courts to dismiss frivolous patent litigation at the complaint stage. In this article, I look at the Federal Circuit’s treatment of Twombly and Iqbal, empirically evaluate 12(b)(6) motions from various district courts, and summarize local patent rules from the Eastern District of Texas. I conclude that the biggest likely impact of statutorily heightening and defining patent pleading standards through the proposed Innovation Act would be to provide much-needed uniformity …
Determining Trademark Standing In The Wake Of Lexmark, John L. Brennan
Determining Trademark Standing In The Wake Of Lexmark, John L. Brennan
Notre Dame Law Review
This Note examines relevant statutory language, case law, and scholarly criticism, and ultimately contends that the standard articulated in Lexmark should apply to both types of claims. Part I provides background regarding the history of the Lanham Act, looking particularly at the ways in which courts have treated trademarks and false advertising differently. Part II discusses the Lexmark decision and the recent district court cases that have addressed its holding. Part III examines the text of both the Lanham Act and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lexmark in order to determine the decision’s scope, and concludes that Lexmark’s holding …
The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
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 …
Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study, Matthew Sag
Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study, Matthew Sag
Faculty Articles
This Article proceeds as follows: Part II locates MDJD suits within the broader context of the IP troll debate. It explains why attempts to define copyright trolls in terms of status—i.e., in terms of the plaintiff’s relationship to the underlying IP—are ultimately flawed and suggests a conduct-focused approach based on identifying systematic opportunism. Part II explains why MDJD lawsuits have all of the hallmarks of copyright trolling, and it explores the basic economics of MDJD litigation. It then presents empirical data documenting the astonishing rise of MDJD lawsuits over the past decade. Part III explores the role of statutory damages …
Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman
Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman
Scholarly Articles
The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.
Linking Patent Reform And Civil Litigation Reform, Greg Reilly
Linking Patent Reform And Civil Litigation Reform, Greg Reilly
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
Patent reform increasingly focuses on discovery. Discovery is perceived as disproportionately expensive and burdensome in patent cases. Excessive discovery is said to fuel so-called “patent trolls” and impose an unhealthy tax on innovation and competition. These supposedly exceptional problems have led to exceptional patent-only reform proposals, such as delaying most discovery for over a year and reversing the seventy-five-year-old allocation of discovery costs. Treating patent litigation as exceptional has a siloing effect. Patent reform debates ignore parallel debates over general civil litigation reform that raise the same arguments about disproportionately expensive and burdensome discovery and propose their own set of …
Does The Presumption Of Validity Matter? An Experimental Assessment, Jeremy W. Brock
Does The Presumption Of Validity Matter? An Experimental Assessment, Jeremy W. Brock
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.