Law Commons^™

Decisionmaking In Patent Cases At The Federal Circuit, Jason Reinecke

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article provides the results of an empirical study assessing the impact of panel composition in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. The dataset includes 2675 three-judge panel-level final written decisions and Rule 36 summary affirmances issued by the Federal Circuit between January 1, 2014 and May 31, 2021. The study informs the longstanding debate concerning whether the Federal Circuit is succeeding as a court with nationwide jurisdiction in patent cases and provides insight into judicial decisionmaking more broadly. And several results show that many of the worst fears that commentators have about the Federal Circuit appear overstated or untrue. …

The Perks Of Being Human, Max Stul Oppenheimer

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The power of artificial intelligence has recently entered the public consciousness, prompting debates over numerous legal issues raised by use of the tool. Among the questions that need to be resolved is whether to grant intellectual property rights to copyrightable works or patentable inventions created by a machine, where there is no human intervention sufficient to grant those rights to the human. Both the U. S. Copyright Office and the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office have taken the position that in cases where there is no human author or inventor, there is no right to copyright or patent protection. …

A Named Inventor Of A Patent Should Be Expanded To Include Artificial Intelligence, Min Li

Touro Law Review

Why should patent inventors be limited to only natural persons under the current United States patent law? In fact, the present US patent law should be expanded to allow an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to be a named inventor of a patent. This would incentivize patent owners to use AI to produce more inventions that would benefit the public. There is no negative impact to expand the current US patent law. Many scholars, law professors, and practitioners believe that the patent law (or intellectual property law in general) is outdated due to the massive growth of modern technology. This Note argues …

Greasing The Wheels Of Patent Law: Clarifying The Judicial Exceptions Via American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. V. Neapco Holdings Llc, Michael Oliver

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

Patents stimulate the economy, they give inventors (and investors in the patent) confidence that their work will be protected. You have never been able to patent laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract ideas. These combine to create the judicial exceptions. The issue is that these terms are so broad that it is difficult to determine when a patent is connected to a judicial exception. The Supreme Court created the Alice test, a two-part test to determine whether a claim is tied to a judicial exception. That was back in 2014 and is the last time the Supreme Court has …

The (Unnoticed) Revitalization Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Daryl Lim

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over the past century, few patent issues have been considered so often by the Supreme Court of the United States as the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”). This judge-made rule deals with a question that lies at the heart of patent policy—what is the best way to define property rights in an invention? The doctrine gives patentees an opportunity to ensnare an accused device that does not literally infringe a patent claim if the accused device is substantially similar to each claim limitation. Patentees enjoy this advantage, but it comes at a cost to the public, who must face the …

The Justiciability Of Cancelled Patents, Greg Reilly

Washington and Lee Law Review

The recent expansion of the Patent Office’s power to invalidate issued patents raises a coordination problem when there is concurrent litigation, particularly where the federal courts have already upheld the patent’s validity. The Federal Circuit has concluded that Patent Office cancellation extinguishes litigation pending at any stage and requires vacating prior decisions in the case. This rule is widely criticized on doctrinal, policy, and separation of powers grounds. Yet the Federal Circuit has reached (almost) the right outcome, except for the wrong reasons. Both the Federal Circuit and its critics overlook that the Federal Circuit’s rule reflects a straightforward application …

The Federal Circuit's Treatment Of Rule 12 Dismissals For Lack Of Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Andrew Kanel

Akron Law Review

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, there has been an increase in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12 motions to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter. These motions are often granted at the district court level and are predominantly upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). This trend creates a hostile environment for inventors and patent holders and threatens to curb innovation in various areas including computer software, biotechnology, and medical diagnostics. The Federal Circuit’s current application of the Alice test at the Rule 12 stage favors …

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.

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

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.

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

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Patent Reformist Supreme Court And Its Unearthed Precedent, Samuel F. Ernst

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

How is it that the Supreme Court, a generalist court, is leading a project of innovation reform in our times while the court of appeals established to encourage innovation is having its precedent stricken down time and again? This decade the Supreme Court has issued far more patent law decisions than in any decade since the passage of the Patent Act of 1952. In doing so, the Supreme Court has overruled the Federal Circuit in roughly threequarters of the patent cases in which the Supreme Court has issued opinions. In most of these cases, the Supreme Court has established rules …

Rule 36 Decisions At The Federal Circuit: Statutory Authority, Matthew J. Dowd

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Recent commentary has questioned the validity of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's use of Rule 36 affirmances in deciding appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One article in particular posits that 35 U.S.C. § 144 and 15 U.S.C.§ 1071(a)(4) require the Federal Circuit to write an opinion in every appeal from the USPTO and therefore the court's use of Rule 36 affirmances, particularly with appeals of cases from the America Invents Act, is improper. This Article presents a reasoned counterpoint to that argument. A complete analysis of the statutory text, the legislative history, …

The Post-Alice Jurisprudence Pendulum And Its Effects On Patent Eligible Subject Matter, John Robert Sepúlveda

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Getting Patent Preemption Right, Camilla A. Hrdy

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley

Vanderbilt Law Review

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 …

#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.

Standing With A Bundle Of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine In Action, Mark J. Abate, Christopher J. Morten

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

This Article provides an overview of the Federal Circuit’s all substantial rights doctrine. Surveying decades of case law, this Article seeks to clarify this confusing area of the law and set out the essential rules for those engaged in patent licensing, patent assignment, and patent litigation. This Article begins by explaining why effective ownership of a patent is critical to standing, and then describes the framework through which courts determine whether a party is, in fact, in possession of all substantial rights and is therefore the effective owner. While there are many factors that courts may consider, certain rights take …

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

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 …

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, …

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.

Moral Judgments In Trademark Law, Ned Snow

American University Law Review

Under the federal Lanham Act, eligibility for trademark protection depends on whether a mark is sufficiently moral. The Federal Circuit has recently held this provision of the Act to be unconstitutional based on its interpretation of speech doctrine. The context of trademark law, however, refutes this interpretation. Indeed, speech doctrine appears to support this morality requirement. Nevertheless, there seems to be another reason that the Federal Circuit held the morality requirement unconstitutional: the judicial discomfort with morality serving as a basis for law. This Essay concludes that this judicial discomfort is unjustified in this instance. From both a constitutional and …

I Dissent: The Federal Circuit's "Great Dissenter," Her Influence On The Patent Dialogue, And Why It Matters, Daryl Lim

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Article is the first study to comprehensively explore the centrality of the patent dialogue at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's principal patent court from empirical, doctrinal, and policy perspectives. It offers several insights into how the Federal Circuit reaches consensus and when it does not, serving as a window into its inner workings, a reference to academics, judges, and attorneys alike. More broadly, this Article provides a template to study the "legal dialogue" of other judges at the Federal Circuit, those in other Circuits, as well as those in other areas of the law. …