Law Commons^™

Is The Federal Circuit Learning Its Lessons? A Case Study Of Bpcia Preemption, Mary Lafleur

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Petitioner Estoppel From Patent Trial And Appeal Board Proceedings After Sas Institute Inc. V. Iancu, Jennifer Esch, Paula Miller, Stacy Lewis, Tom Irving

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Collapse Of Covered Business Method Reviews, Eleanor M. Yost

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Huge Numbers Of Patent Cases: How One District Judge Manages Them - The 2018 Supreme Court Ip Review Address, The Honorable William Alsup

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Patent On-Sale Bar Post-Helsinn And Its Effect On The Pharmaceutical Industry, Raja Chatterjee

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The purpose of the patent on-sale bar is to discourage inventors from misusing the patent system and unfairly extending their patent exclusivity period. In Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Federal Circuit has distorted this doctrine far beyond its purpose. By including non-public business transactions within the scope of the on-sale bar, the Federal Circuit’s decision contradicts legislative history and express statutory language from the America Invents Act (“AIA”). This interpretation also makes the U.S. the only major patent system where a non-public sale can lead to the forfeiture of an inventor’s patent rights. The inclusion of non-public agreements within …

Using A Phillips Construction In All Ptab Trials: The Impact On District Court Patent Actions And Ptab Proceedings, Sarah Jelsema, Andrew Mason, John Vandenberg

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Aia Proceedings After Sas Institute Inc. V. Iancu, Mikaela Stone, Britton Davis

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

All Or Nothing: Why The Supreme Court Sas Mandate Does Not Eliminate The Shaw Safe Harbor, Matt Johnson, Michael Lavine, Daniel Kazhdan Ph.D, Lisa Furby, David Anderson

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

#Squadgoals: A Response To Seth Waxman, Amelia Smith Rinehart

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Court Divided, Shubha Ghosh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a remarkable number of patent cases in the past decade, particularly as compared to the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence. No longer is the Federal Circuit “the de facto Supreme Court of patents,” as Mark Janis wrote in 2001. Rather, it seems the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of patents. In the article at the center of this symposium, Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit writes that the Supreme Court’s decisions “have had a major impact on patent law,” citing, among other evidence, the Court’s seventy percent reversal rate …

How Can The Supreme Court Not “Understand” Patent Law?, Gregory Reilly

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The Supreme Court does understand patent law. This invited Essay responds to Federal Circuit Judge Dyk’s remarks at the Chicago-Kent Supreme Court IP Review, in particular, his observation that the patent “bar and the academy have expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court understands patent law well enough to make the governing rules” (a view Judge Dyk did not endorse). The idea that the Supreme Court does not understand the law of patents is implausible. Even more generous interpretations of this criticism – that the Supreme Court insufficiently understands innovation policy, insufficiently understands the patent system that Congress desired in creating …

Response To Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Donald R. Dunner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Is The Supreme Court Concerned With Patent Law, The Federal Circuit, Or Both: A Response To Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Timothy R. Holbrook

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This essay is a response to Hon. Timothy B. Dyk, Thoughts on the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, 16 CHI.-KENT J. OF INTELL. PROP. 67 (2016). In it, I address the reasons for the Supreme Court's engagement with patent law. In other words, is the Court interested in patent law itself, or is there something about the Federal Circuit as an institution that has garnered the Court's gaze. I conclude it is a combination of the two. The Court is concerned with certain aspects of patent doctrine, but it is also concerned with the Federal Circuit, …

Thoughts On The Relationship Between The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit, Timothy B. Dyk

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Federal Circuit's Obviousness Test For New Pharmaceutical Compounds: Gobbledygook?, Douglas L. Rogers

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Saving The Federal Circuit, Paul R. Gugliuzza

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

In a recent, attention-grabbing speech, the Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit, Diane Wood, argued that Congress should abolish the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. Exclusive jurisdiction, she said, provides too much legal uniformity, which harms the patent system. In this response to Judge Wood’s thoughtful speech, I seek to highlight two important premises underlying her argument, neither of which is indisputably true.

The first premise is that the Federal Circuit actually provides legal uniformity. Judge Wood suggests that, due to the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, patent doctrine is insufficiently “percolated,” meaning that it lacks mechanisms through which …

Abolishing Exclusive Jurisdiction In The Federal Circuit: A Response To Judge Wood, Rochelle C. Dreyfus

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

Part of a symposium of responses to Chief Judge Wood’s suggestion for giving regional circuits a share of the Federal Circuit’s authority over patent law, this article argues that now that a degree of nationwide uniformity in patent law has been achieved, it would be a pity to disrupt it. While Chief Judge Wood is right that the law would improve with percolation, a change in the composition of the court, new procedures for challenging patents in the Patent and Trademark Office, a District Court pilot program, and satellite patent offices will bring to the debate new voices, different kinds …

Competing With The “Patent Court”: A Newly Robust Ecosystem, Arti K. Rai

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

In a provocative address, Chief Judge Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals suggests exposing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, created in 1982 to hear all appeals from patent cases, to competition from sister appellate courts. This response, published as part of a Symposium on Chief Judge Wood's address, argues that competition is indeed desirable. Whether such competition is best provided by other appellate courts is unclear, however. The more tractable approach is to improve competitive input from sources that have already emerged. These include dissenting Federal Circuit judges, parties and amici who are not "patent …

Federal Circuit Exclusive Appellate Patent Jurisdiction: A Response To Chief Judge Wood, Harold C. Wegner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Keynote Address: Is It Time To Abolish The Federal Circuit's Exclusive Jurisdiction In Patent Cases?, Diane P. Wood

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.