Litigation Commons^™

Pooling Patents For Pandemic Progress: Mrna Vaccines And The Broader Context Of Modernatx Inc V. Pfizer Inc., Francis Brefo

DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Patent Inconsistency, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Indiana Law Journal

Despite the promise of efficiency through the use of expert agency adjudication in U.S. patent law, administrative substitution continues to fall short. In a variety of ways, the decade-old system of Patent Office adjudication is simply an additional place to litigate rather than the robust technocratic alternative it was meant to be. These problems have arisen from important defects in the statutory design, but also from the enormous expansion and ascendancy of the Patent Office itself. Moreover, while duplicative litigation over patent validity is recognized and criticized, its scale and scope has eluded detailed empirical analysis until now. This Article …

Looking For Venue In The Patently Right Places: A Parallel Study Of The Venue Act And Venue In Anda Litigation, Mengke Xing

San Diego Law Review

Like any other type of litigation, venue is often an important strategic decision for patent infringement litigants. Under the traditional nation-wide venue rule, a patent owner was able to sue a corporate defendant almost in every district in the country, giving rise to abusive forum shopping and the popularity of the Eastern District of Texas. Last year, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland dramatically changed the legal framework of venue in patent litigation, while leaving some issues unaddressed. After a discussion of the evolvement of venue laws and the significance of TC Heartland, this Comment focuses on the Venue Equity …

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …

Patent Eligibility's Doctrinal Exclusions... Lately, A Scary Movie Too Difficult To Watch: Concrete Solutions And Suggestions, Kristy J. Downing

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent eligible subject matter is defined by the legislature’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” Since the nineteenth century, however, United States (U.S.) courts have considered certain otherwise eligible subject matter excludable from patent protection. The judiciary’s doctrinal exclusions’ purpose was to protect fundamental building blocks to science and useful arts ensuring that such information could not be monopolized by one entity. Presently, however, the judicial exclusions have been used to exclude fewer fundamental building blocks and more ordinary brick-and-mortar innovations after two U.S. supreme court decisions (Mayo …

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 …

The Rule Of Reason, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Antitrust’s rule of reason was born out of a thirty-year (1897-1927) division among Supreme Court Justices about the proper way to assess multi-firm restraints on competition. By the late 1920s the basic contours of the rule for restraints among competitors was roughly established. Antitrust policy toward vertical restraints remained much more unstable, however, largely because their effects were so poorly understood.

This article provides a litigation field guide for antitrust claims under the rule of reason – or more precisely, for situations when application of the rule of reason is likely. At the time pleadings are drafted and even up …

Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis And Structured Framework, Peter S. Menell, Matthew D. Powers, Steven C. Carlson

Peter Menell

No abstract provided.

The Problem With Frand: How The Licensing Commitments Of Standard-Setting Organizations Result In The Misvaluing Of Patents, David Arsego

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Standard-setting organizations (SSOs) are bodies that oversee the development of technical standards. Technical standards are common technological designs that are used across a variety of platforms, for instance LTE, which is utilized throughout the mobile phone industry. Members of SSOs contribute different pieces of technology to an ultimate design, and if a patent covers the technology, it is called a standard-essential patent (SEP). SSOs require their members to license these patents to each other on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. This Note analyzes the FRAND requirement and the different ways that courts and private parties interpret it. The ambiguity …

One Hundred Nos: An Empirical Analysis Of The First 100 Denials Of Institution For Inter Partes And Covered Business Method Patent Reviews, Jonathan R. K. Stroud, Jarrad Wood

Jonathan R. K. Stroud

Tasked in 2011 with creating three powerful new patent review trial regimes, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—through the efforts of their freshly empowered quasi-judicial body, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board—set to creating a fast-paced trial with minimal discovery and maximum efficiency. In the first two years of existence, the proceedings have proved potent, holding unpatentable many of the claims that reach decisions on the merits. Yet a small subsection of petitions never make it past the starting gate, resulting in wasted time and effort on the parts of petitioners—and likely sighs of relief from the rights-holders. Parties on …

Software Patentability After Prometheus, Joseph Holland King

Georgia State University Law Review

This Note examines the history of patentability of abstract ideas and the tests that courts have used to make the determination of whether an invention incorporating an abstract idea is patentable. Part I provides a history of the four seminal cases related to patentable subject matter, as well as some more recent on point decisions. Part II changes focus to the various tests and factors that have been used by the courts, exploring the history of each, discussing the treatment by the Supreme Court, and determining the strengths and weaknesses of each. Based on the discussion in Part II, Part …

What Patent Attorney Fee Awards Really Look Like, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This essay gives an empirical account of attorney fee awards over the last decade of patent litigation. Given the current attention in legislative proposals and on the Supreme Court’s docket to more liberal fee shifting as a check on abusive patent litigation, a fuller descriptive understanding of the current regime is of utmost importance to forming sound patent litigation policy. Following a brief overview of judicial experience in patent cases and trends in patent case filing, this study presents analysis of over 200 attorney fee award orders during 2003-2013.

The study confirms the commonsense view that plaintiffs have tended to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law, Business, And Economics Scholars In Alice Corp. V. Cls Bank, No. 13-298, Jason Schultz, Brian Love, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Circuit’s expansion of patentable subject matter in the 1990s led to a threefold increase in software patents, many of which contain abstract ideas merely tethered to a general-purpose computer. There is little evidence, however, to suggest this expansion has produced an increase in software innovation. The software industry was highly innovative in the decade immediately prior to this expansion, when the viability of software patentability was unclear and software patents were few. When surveyed, most software developers oppose software patenting, and, in practice, software innovators tend to rely on other tools to capture market share such as first-mover …

Preliminary Injunctions Post-Mayo And Myriad, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

The Supreme Court's recent interest in patentable subject matter has had several, unexpected downstream effects on preliminary injunctions in patent disputes.

The Supreme Court has recently expressed increased interest in patent eligibility, or patentable subject matter, the doctrine that limits the types of inventions eligible for patenting. Its two decisions, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., in 2012, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., in 2013, represented the first broad restrictions on patentable subject matter in over thirty years. And later this term, the Court will decide yet another patent eligibility case: Alice Corp. v. CLS …

Patent Exclusions And Antitrust After Therasense, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

A patent may be held invalid if it was obtained by “inequitable conduct” before the PTO during the process of patent prosecution. In its Therasense decision the Federal Circuit imposed severe requirements against those attempting to defend against a patent on the basis of inequitable conduct, insisting that inequitable conduct be measured essentially by a subjective test. Objective “reasonable person” tests such as negligence or even gross negligence will not suffice. By contrast, the Supreme Court has insisted that the conduct giving rise to a wrongful infringement action violating the antitrust laws be initially based on an objective test – …

Harm To Competition Or Innovation, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

This book of CASES AND MATERIALS ON INNOVATION AND COMPETITION POLICY is intended for educational use. The book is free for all to use subject to an open source license agreement. It differs from IP/antitrust casebooks in that it considers numerous sources of competition policy in addition to antitrust, including those that emanate from the intellectual property laws themselves, and also related issues such as the relationship between market structure and innovation, the competitive consequences of regulatory rules governing technology competition such as net neutrality and interconnection, misuse, the first sale doctrine, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Chapters …

Certain Patents, Alan C. Marco, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents the first in a series of studies of stock market reactions to the legal outcomes of patent cases. From a sample of patents litigated during a 20-year period, we estimate market reactions to patent litigation decisions and to patent grants. These estimates reveal that the resolution of legal uncertainty over patent validity and patent infringement is, on average, worth as much to a firm as is the initial grant of the patent right. Each is worth about 1.0-1.5% excess returns on investment. There are significant differences between such market reactions before and after the establishment in 1982 …

Could A Hub And Spoke, Homegrown Ceo Strategy Boost The Success Of University Start-Ups?, Brendan O. Baggot, Martin R. Graf Phd

Brendan O. Baggot

How can universities make more money with their spinout company (SpinCo)‐suitable technologies? By “growing” their own CEOs to improve both the quality and quantity of startup company leaders available, that’s how. Surprisingly, however, at most universities little or no effort is made to interweave this critical need into tech transfer efforts.

Cross-Border Injunctions In U.S. Patent Cases And Their Enforcement Abroad, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

In surveying recent literature on difficulties with cross-border injunctions in patent cases, one may conclude that the problem appears to be limited to the phenomenon of pan-European injunctions granted by some courts in Europe in cases concerning infringements of foreign patents. However, even in cases concerning domestic patents, injunctions reaching beyond national borders can be issued; the empirical evidence presented in the paper demonstrates a variety of such instances in U.S. patent cases. Certainly the existence of such injunctions in the U.S. raises concerns about their enforceability in other countries, particularly when they are issued against a foreign entity that …

Learning From Litigation: What Can Lawsuits Teach Us About The Role Of Human Gene Patents In Research And Innovation, Christopher M. Holman

Faculty Works

In 2007, I published an article entitled "The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation," in which I reported the results of a project to identify and characterize all instances in which a human gene patent was asserted in a lawsuit. For the purposes of this study, I essentially treated any US patent claiming a product or process involving one or more specific human genes as a "human gene patent."

In the present article I explore in greater depth some of the implications of the 2007 study, and discuss some general …

The Walker Process Doctrine: Infringement Lawsuits As Antitrust Violations, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Antitrust law's Walker Process doctrine permits a patent infringement defendant to show that an improperly maintained infringement action constitutes unlawful monopolization or an unlawful attempt to monopolize. The infringement defendant must show both that the lawsuit is improper, which establishes the conduct portion of the violation and generally satisfies tort law requirements, and also that the structural prerequisites for the monopolization offense are present. The doctrine also applies to non-patent infringement actions and has been applied by the Supreme Court to copyright infringement actions. Walker Process itself somewhat loosely derives from the Supreme Court's Noerr-Pennington line of cases holding that …

Should Patent Infringement Require Proof Of Copying?, Mark A. Lemley

Michigan Law Review

Patent infringement is a strict liability offense. Patent law gives patent owners not just the right to prevent others from copying their ideas, but the power to control the use of their idea--even by those who independently develop a technology with no knowledge of the patent or the patentee. This is a power that exists nowhere else in intellectual property (IP) or real property law, but it is a one that patentees have had, with rare exceptions, since the inception of the Republic. In an important paper in the Michigan Law Review, Samson Vermont seeks to change this, arguing …

The Angel Is In The Big Picture: A Response To Lemley, Samson Vermont

Michigan Law Review

An invention within close reach of multiple inventors differs from an invention within distant reach of a lone inventor. The differences between these two archetypes of invention -"reinventables" and "singletons"- remain unexploited under current U.S. law. Should we reform the law to exploit the differences? Mark Lemley and I agree that we should. To date, those economists who have closely examined the issue concur. What are the differences between reinventables and singletons? First, reinventables can be brought into existence with incentives of lower magnitude. This suggests that we can obtain reinventables at a lower price than we currently pay-i.e., with …

Recombinant Proteins Containing Repeating Units, Qi Wang, Zhonghon Guan, Brendan O. Baggot, Kristen Hadfield, Jianmin Zhao, Janice Edwards

Brendan O. Baggot

Methods for the production of recombinant proteins containing repeating units are disclosed. Also disclosed are methods for the production of degenerate polynucleotides encoding said recombinant proteins. In addition, polypeptides and polynucleotides produced by the methods of current invention are also disclosed.

Ip And Antitrust Policy: A Brief Historical Overview, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The history of IP/antitrust litigation is filled with exaggerated notions of the power conferred by IP rights and imagined threats to competition. The result is that antitrust litigation involving IP practices has seen problems where none existed. To be sure, finding the right balance between maintaining competition and creating incentives to innovate is no easy task. However, the judge in an IP/antitrust case almost never needs to do the balancing, most of which is done in the language of the IP provisions. The role of antitrust tribunals is the much more limited one of ensuring that any alleged threat to …

Reforming Patent Validity Litigation: The "Dubious Preponderance", Mark D. Janis

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Law And Fact In Patent Litigation: Form Versus Function, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Recently, the Supreme Court sent Dennison Mfg. v. Panduit Corp. back to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It remanded with explicit directions that the lower court consider the extent to which Rule 52(a) governs appellate review of determinations of obviousness.

It is by no means certain that obviousness determinations should be treated as questions of law. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that courts seek to review findings of obviousness (or nonobviousness) more intensely than would be appropriate under the "clearly erroneous" or "substantial evidence" standards. If the courts are inclined to persist in more intense review …

Judgments - Propriety Of Finding That A Nonparty Conducted The Defense, David N. Mills

Michigan Law Review

A patent infringement suit against a distributor was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff's patents were invalid. A finding was incorporated in the judgment that the defense had been "openly and avowedly conducted" by the manufacturer of the article distributed by defendant. Plaintiff objected that the finding "on its face would be a valid estoppel" in case plaintiff later wished to sue the manufacturer in a separate suit. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to have the finding deleted from the judgment since the finding was not necessary to a disposition of the issues between plaintiff and defendant. Minneapolis- Honeywell …