Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (2)
- AIA (1)
- Actions and defenses (1)
- Administrative (1)
- Agency (1)
-
- America Invents Act (1)
- Appeal (1)
- CBM (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Collective Action (1)
- Complex litigation (1)
- Covered Business Method (1)
- Due process (1)
- Elections (1)
- Empirical (1)
- Freeman (1)
- General jurisdiction (1)
- Hughes (1)
- IPR (1)
- Inter Partes (1)
- Intervenor (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Marks (1)
- Marriage (1)
- Minimum contacts (1)
- Muslim Ban (1)
- Non-majority (1)
- PTAB (1)
- Patent (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman
Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
After more than twenty years of silence, the Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction six times over the last six Terms. This Article examines the Court’s recent decisions in terms of their effect on access to justice and the enforcement of substantive law. The Court’s new case law has unquestionably made it harder to establish general jurisdiction—that is, the kind of jurisdiction that requires no affiliation at all between the forum state and the litigation. Although this shift has been justifiably criticized, meaningful access and enforcement can be preserved through other aspects of the jurisdictional framework, namely (1) the basic …
When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Faculty Scholarship
The rise of administrative patent validity review since the America Invents Act has rested on an enormous expansion of Patent Office authority. A relatively little-known aspect of that authority is the agency's statutory ability to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals from adversarial proceedings in its own Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office has exercised this intervenor authority frequently and with specific apparent policy objectives, including where one of the adverse parties did not participate in the appeal. Moreover, until recently, there has been no constitutional inquiry into the Article III standing that the Patent Office must establish in …
Stays, Portia Pedro
Stays, Portia Pedro
Faculty Scholarship
After judges issue orders or judgments, they often face the difficult task of making a determination even more complex than that of the underlying order, but in less time, with less guidance, and with high stakes. These judges are deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal — whether to prevent the enforcement of a court order or judgment until a court has decided the appeal. Although stays may seem to be a mere procedural technicality, stays are, instead, the new battleground for injunctive litigation. While review was pending, stay determinations have decided if abortion providers could operate in Texas, …
Nonmajority Opinions And Biconditional Rules, Adam N. Steinman
Nonmajority Opinions And Biconditional Rules, Adam N. Steinman
Faculty Scholarship
In Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court will revisit a thorny question: how to determine the precedential effect of decisions with no majority opinion. For four decades, the clearest instruction from the Court has been the rule from Marks v. United States: the Court's holding is "the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." The Marks rule raises particular concerns, however, when it is applied to biconditional rules. Biconditionals are distinctive in that they set a standard that dictates both success and failure for a given issue. More formulaically, they combine an …
A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel
A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel
Faculty Scholarship
In a quartet of recent decisions, the Supreme Court substantially reshaped the analysis of due process limits for a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporations for the first time since its groundbreaking 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court's decision quartet recasts the International Shoe continuum of corporate contacts for which it would be "reasonable" for the state to exercise jurisdiction based on "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" into a more rigid bright-line dichotomy between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction: for a state to exercise general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction over any suit, regardless of …
Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, Robin Effron
Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, Robin Effron
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.