Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams
Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes included, among other things, the abrogation of the Appendix of Forms, which contained templates for summons, complaints, answers, and other litigation documents. Prior to its abrogation, Form 18—a template for a “Complaint for Patent Infringement”—was widely utilized by patent plaintiffs in crafting infringement complaints. Form 18 was created during the Conley pleading regime, when conclusory allegations were generally sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the sample allegations in Form 18 were conclusory and bare-bones in nature. Under Conley, plaintiffs who followed this …
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 …
Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long
Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while serving on a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporations, brought a civil action in federal district court alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The venue provision of the Jones Act requires that actions under it be brought in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania although defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal offices in Louisiana. Defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of …
Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.
Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner brought a patent infringement action in the northern district of Texas, wherein the alleged infringement occurred and the named defendants resided and had a regular place of business. On motion by the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), authorizing the transfer of certain actions to a district in which the action "might have been brought," the court ordered transfer to the northern district of Illinois where litigation on the same patent was already in progress between the plaintiff and other alleged infringers. Petitioner's motion for mandamus to require the Texas district court to set aside this transfer order was …
Federal Practice - Appeal And Error - Dismissal Of Counterclaim Because Of Improper Venue Appealable As Interlocutory Order Denying Injunction
Michigan Law Review
To plaintiffs' suit for patent infringement defendants counterclaimed upon an unrelated patent asking for an injunction and an accounting. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue was sustained by the district court. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs moved to dismiss on the ground that dismissal of a counterclaim was not a refusal of an injunction and therefore not appealable under Sec. 129, Judicial Code. The circuit court of appeals allowed the appeal and this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. General Electric Co. et al. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co. et al., 287 U.S. 430, 53 …