Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Discovering Ebay's Impact On Copyright Injunctions Through Empirical Evidence, Matthew Sag, Pamela Samuelson

Faculty Articles

This Article reports on new empirical evidence discrediting the widely held view that judges have resisted applying the Supreme Court’s teachings in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. about injunctive relief in copyright cases. That 2006 patent law decision ruled that courts should not automatically issue injunctions upon a finding of infringement; instead, plaintiffs must prove their entitlement to injunctive relief. eBay had a seismic impact on patent litigation and greatly reduced the threat that small infringements could be leveraged into billion-dollar settlements. Yet prior empirical work, at least one major copyright law treatise, and many articles assert that eBay had …

Determining Enhanced Damages After Halo Electronics: Still A Struggle?, Veronica Corcoran

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act allows district courts to use their discretion to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed in the case of patent infringement. This Comment will consider how the Supreme court of the United States’ holding in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse electronics, Inc. changed the landscape of enhanced damages awards in light of willful infringement.

First, this Comment will examine the Federal Circuit’s approach that now embraces both an objective and subjective inquiry in determining enhanced damages, which may resolve the concern over the rigidity in the Seagate …

Will Delaware Be Different? An Empirical Study Of Tc Heartland And The Shift To Defendant Choice Of Venue, Ofer Eldar, Neel U. Sukhatme

Faculty Scholarship

Why do some venues evolve into litigation havens while others do not? Venues might compete for litigation for various reasons, such as enhancing their judges’ prestige and increasing revenues for the local bar. This competition is framed by the party that chooses the venue. Whether plaintiffs or defendants primarily choose venue is crucial because, we argue, the two scenarios are not symmetrical.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods illustrates this dynamic. There, the Court effectively shifted venue choice in many patent infringement cases from plaintiffs to corporate defendants. We use TC Heartland to empirically measure …

E-Obviousness, Glynn S. Lunney Jr.

Glynn Lunney

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 …

Weeds, Seeds, & Deeds Redux: Natural And Legal Evolution In The U.S. Seed Wars, Rebecca Stewart

Rebecca K Stewart

Ever since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office began issuing utility patents for plants, the United States has sat squarely on the frontlines of what have come to be known as the “seed wars.” In the last two decades, the majority of battles in the U.S. seed wars have been waged in the form of patent infringement lawsuits. Typically these suits are filed by biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto against farmers accused of saving and planting patented seed that self-replicates to produce progeny embodying—and thus infringing—the biotech corporations’ patented inventions.

Yet in recent years, the seed wars have begun to …

District Courts Versus The Usitc: Considering Exclusionary Relief For F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents, Helen H. Ji

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Technological standards allow manufacturers and consumers to rely upon these agreed-upon basic systems to facilitate sales and further invention. However, where these standards involved patented technology, the process of standard-setting raises many concerns at the intersection of antitrust and patent law. As patent holders advocate for their patents to become part of technological standards, how should courts police this activity to prevent patent holdup and other anti-competitive practices? This Note explores the differing approaches to remedies employed by the United States International Trade Commission and the United States District Courts where standard-essential patents are infringed. This Note further proposes that …

Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

An individual is liable for patent infringement if he infringes one or more patented claims either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or § 271(c). In 2012, the Federal Circuit clarified its interpretation of § 271(b) and § 271(c) in the case of Akamai v. Limelight. However, the court failed to address issues of “divided” direct infringement, where two or more entities combine and together complete each and every step of a method claim, but no single entity does all of the steps. This Note walks through the history of the judicial interpretation …

The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court’s power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court’s federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …

Teva V. Eisai: What's The Real Controversy, Grace Wang

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Note examines the changing role of declaratory judgment actions in challenging patents upon generic entry and evaluates alternative regulatory schemes to the FDA's current system of patent enforcement in the drug approval setting. Part I reviews the Federal Circuit's recent decisions regarding generic drug entry, focusing on how the courts justify declaratory judgments in the current system and when a "controversy" exists to create Article III jurisdiction. Part II examines the complex system of regulating generic drug entry and how attempts to stop the exploitation of loopholes have resulted in a patchwork of regulation by various parties. It challenges …

Re-Evaluating Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction In Intellectual Property Disputes, Lorelei Ritchie De Larena

Indiana Law Journal

The Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was quickly tagged by the US. Supreme Court as a simple procedural measure. That said, the addition of the declaratory judgment option has dramatically increased the rights of would-be defendants. This is of special interest in patent law, where without the ability to initiate legal action, an alleged infringer would typically have no recourse but to either drop a lucrative business and lose a massive investment, or to languish in legal limbo while potentially accruing liability for treble damages. The option of a mirror-image lawsuit removes the patentee's ability to decide unilaterally when, where-and, …

Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

This Article considers the effect of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. on the nonobviousness standard for patentability as applied to pharmaceutical patents. By calling for an expansive and flexible analysis and disapproving of the use of rigid formulas in evaluating an invention for obviousness, KSR may appear to make it easier for generic competitors to challenge the validity of drug patents. But an examination of the Federal Circuit's nonobviousness jurisprudence in the context of such challenges reveals that the Federal Circuit has been employing all along the sort of flexible …

The Experimental Purpose Doctrine And Biomedical Research, Tao Huang

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The experimental use doctrine is a common law rule in patent law that until a few years ago excused accused infringers who made and used patented products or processes on the basis of an experimental, educational, or nonprofit purpose when there was de minimis economic injury to the patent owner and de minimis economic gain to the infringer. While the application of the experimental purpose doctrine was always narrow, two recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that there is not much left under its aegis. In Madey v. Duke University, the Federal Circuit strictly limited the application of the experimental purpose …

Arising Under Jurisdiction And Uniformity In Patent Law, Christopher A. Cotropia

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The law governing the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction was brought into question in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Circulation Systems, Inc. The Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction over Vornado's appeal rested solely on Vornado's counterclaim alleging patent infringement by Holmes. Holmes's complaint sought a declaratory judgment of no trade dress infringement and did not include any patent law claims. While the Federal Circuit found appellate jurisdiction over Vornado's appeal based on the counterclaim of patent infringement, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court focused on the language in 35 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which defines the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction by the statute's …

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.

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 …

Judge And Jury Roles In Equivalents Analysis: Commentary On Malta V. Schulmerich Carillons, Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons Inc. a divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a JNOV granted on a jury verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In so doing, the panel majority confirmed the applicability of guidelines from previous cases for determining the threshold level of evidence necessary to get the equivalents issue to the jury. This paper argues that despite powerful criticism from the dissent, the common sense guidelines articulated in theMalta majority opinion are not only necessary, but are appropriate. Indeed, the paper argues that the Malta guidelines are fundamental to the equivalents analysis, and …