Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Patents (2)
- Alternative dispute resolution (1)
- American Invents Act (1)
- Appointments clause (1)
- Brett Kavanaugh (1)
-
- Checks and balances (1)
- Courts (1)
- Crowdsourcing (1)
- Due process (1)
- Due process of law (1)
- Empirical (1)
- Empirical research (1)
- Executive power (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Government accountability (1)
- Guidance (1)
- Hindsight Bias (1)
- Inter partes review (1)
- International law (1)
- National security (1)
- Optimism bias (1)
- Patentable subject matter (1)
- President (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Race (1)
- Rule 36 (1)
- Search and Seizure (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Settlement (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Testimony Of Rebecca Ingber Before The United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary On The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh For Associate Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court, Rebecca Ingber
Faculty Scholarship
Professor Rebecca Ingber testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as it considered the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her testimony focused on Judge Kavanaugh's national security and international law jurisprudence, in particular, the court's role in considering international law constraints on the President's war powers, and the potential effects of this judicial approach on executive power.
Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley
Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley
Faculty Scholarship
Can an appellate court alter substantive law without writing an opinion? We attempt to answer that question by conducting a novel empirical investigation into how the Federal Circuit has implemented the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, the most recent in a series of Supreme Court decisions strengthening patent law’s patentable subject matter requirement. Our dataset includes each one of the Federal Circuit’s more than 100 decisions on patentable subject matter in the three years since Alice, including affirmances issued without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36.
Including those no-opinion affirmances, the Federal Circuit has found …
Crowdsourcing & Data Analytics: The New Settlement Tools, Christopher Robertson, Bernard Chao, David Yokum
Crowdsourcing & Data Analytics: The New Settlement Tools, Christopher Robertson, Bernard Chao, David Yokum
Faculty Scholarship
By protecting the right to a jury, the State and Federal Constitutions recognize the fundamental value of having civil and criminal disputes resolved by laypersons. However actual trials are relatively rare, in part because parties seek to avoid the risks and cost of trials, and courts seek to clear dockets efficiently. Even as settlement may be desirable, it is sometimes difficult to resolve a dispute. Parties naturally view their cases from different perspectives, and these perspectives often cause both sides to be overly optimistic, seeking unreasonably large or unreasonably small resolutions.
This article describes a novel method of incorporating layperson …
Appointments And Illegal Adjudication: The Aia Through A Constitutional Lens, Gary S. Lawson
Appointments And Illegal Adjudication: The Aia Through A Constitutional Lens, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
In 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act (“AIA”), largely in order to provide more effective mechanisms for invalidating, or cancelling, already-issued patents. The statute provides for inter partes review, in which patents, on the request of third parties, can be cancelled by an administrative body, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), subject to deferential judicial review. The constitutionality of this scheme is currently (as of January 9, 2018) before the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, but the arguments in that case understandably focus on the consistency of inter partes review …
Why Courts Fail To Protect Privacy: Race, Age, Bias, And Technology, Christopher Robertson, Bernard Chao, Ian Farrell, Catherine Durso
Why Courts Fail To Protect Privacy: Race, Age, Bias, And Technology, Christopher Robertson, Bernard Chao, Ian Farrell, Catherine Durso
Faculty Scholarship
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable “searches and seizures,” but in the digital age of stingray devices and IP tracking, what constitutes a search or seizure? The Supreme Court has held that the threshold question is supposed to depend on and reflect the “reasonable expectations” of ordinary members of the public concerning their own privacy. For example, the police now exploit the “third party” doctrine to access data held by email and cell phone providers, without securing a warrant, on the Supreme Court’s intuition that the public has no expectation of privacy in that information. Is that assumption correct? If …