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

Intellectual Property Law Commons

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

Courts

UIC School of Law

2018

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law

Patent Pilot Program Perspectives: Patent Litigation In The Northern District Of Illinois, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 348 (2018) Jan 2018

Patent Pilot Program Perspectives: Patent Litigation In The Northern District Of Illinois, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 348 (2018)

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

A Patent Pilot Program, or PPP, is geared towards giving designated judges in various districts more experience with patent cases. The Volume 17 RIPL Executive Board interviewed several participating judges in the Northern District of Illinois’ PPP.

This note is comprised of interviews with Judge Thomas M. Durkin, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, and Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; taken over the course of May and June of 2017 by the Volume 17 RIPL Board members Kaylee Willis and Benjamin Lockyer. Its contents compile a uniform effort by both the judges interviewed …


The Supreme Court: A Help Or A Hindrance To The Federal Circuit's Mission?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 298 (2018), Donald Dunner Jan 2018

The Supreme Court: A Help Or A Hindrance To The Federal Circuit's Mission?, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 298 (2018), Donald Dunner

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Before the establishment of the Federal Circuit, the system of patent enforcement was deeply flawed, with the circuit courts then responsible for reviewing district court patent decisions harboring widely varying attitudinal views in the interpretation of the patent law. Suggestions for solving the problem through a single specialized appellate patent court were consistently rejected due to general hostility to specialized courts. The formation of the Federal Circuit in 1982 initially appeared to solve the problem in providing uniform and predictable rules governing the enforcement of patents, an essential aspect of the court’s mission. The Supreme Court did not provide any …