Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Patent infringement (2)
- Patent law (2)
- Claim construction (1)
- Construction interrogatory (1)
- Doctrine of equivalents (1)
-
- Expert testimony (1)
- Extrinsic evidence (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Federal Circuit courts (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Graham v. John Deere Co. (1)
- History (1)
- In re Convergent Technologies (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
- Internet (1)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1)
- Markman hearing (1)
- Monopoly right (1)
- Northern District of California Patent Local Rules (1)
- Obviousness (1)
- Patent laws and legislation (1)
- Patent practice (1)
- Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co. (1)
- Rule 11 (1)
- Rule 33(c) (1)
- U.S. Supreme Court (1)
- View Engineering v. Robotic Vision Systems (1)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics Inc. (1)
- Vivid Technologies v. American Science & Engineering Inc. (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner
Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner
Michigan Law Review
During patent infringement litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and the federal district court's local rules govern the parties' pretrial discovery and motion practice. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has adopted the most comprehensive local rules to date covering pretrial procedures in the patent litigation context. The Northern District of California Patent Local Rules ("Local Rules") may come to have a significant impact throughout the federal courts, as it appears that other jurisdictions and commentators are looking to the Local Rules for guidance. For instance, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property …
E-Obviousness, Glynn S. Lunney Jr.
E-Obviousness, Glynn S. Lunney Jr.
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
As patents expand into e-commerce and methods of doing business more generally, both the uncertainty and the risk of unjustified market power that the present approach generates suggest a need to rethink our approach to nonobviousness. If courts fail to enforce the nonobviousness requirement and allow an individual to obtain a patent for simply implementing existing methods of doing business through a computer, even where only trivial technical difficulties are presented, entire e-markets might be handed over to patent holders with no concomitant public benefit. If courts attempt to enforce the nonobviousness requirement, but leave undefined the extent of the …
Patent Law In The Age Of The Invisible Supreme Court, Mark D. Janis
Patent Law In The Age Of The Invisible Supreme Court, Mark D. Janis
Articles by Maurer Faculty
This article examines the permanence of the U.S. Supreme Court's retreat to the peripheries of patent law after the creation of the Federal Circuit, and explores the roles that the Supreme Court might imagine for itself in contemporary patent law. For discussion purposes, the article describes two hypothetical models for Supreme Court decisionmaking in patent cases: an aggressive interventionist model and an extreme non-interventionist model. After considering the shortcomings of both models, the article proposes an intermediate, managerial model. The managerial model rejects the proposition that the Court should intervene in patent cases to correct perceived substantive errors in Federal …
State Accountability For Violations Of Intellectual Property Rights: How To "Fix" Florida Prepaid (And How Not To), Mitchell N. Berman
State Accountability For Violations Of Intellectual Property Rights: How To "Fix" Florida Prepaid (And How Not To), Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Collusion And Collective Action In The Patent System: A Proposal For Patent Bounties, John R. Thomas
Collusion And Collective Action In The Patent System: A Proposal For Patent Bounties, John R. Thomas
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Persistent commentary contends that the Patent Office is issuing patents that appropriate public domain concepts at an alarming frequency. Complaints of low patent quality enjoy growing resonance with regard to business methods, computer software, and other inventions for which patents were not traditionally sought. In this article, Professor Jay Thomas explains how the judiciary's lenient view of patentable subject matter and utility standards, along with miserly congressional funding policies, have rendered the Patent Office an increasingly porous agency. Professor Thomas next reviews existing proposals for improving patent quality, including the conventional wisdom that adoption of an opposition system will contribute …