Law Commons^™

Teaching Would-Be Ip Lawyers To "Speak Engineer": An Interdisciplinary Module To Teach New Intellectual Property Attorneys To Work Across Disciplines, Cynthia Laury Dahl

All Faculty Scholarship

More than ever before, law school graduates interested in business law enter a workforce where they must effectively interface with professionals from other disciplines. Yet there are precious few opportunities in law school for students to practice the skills required to perform on an interdisciplinary team. This is especially true regarding mixed teams of law and technical students.

This essay explores a model for integrating an interdisciplinary practicum module into a free-standing class. The module challenges teams of law and engineering students to work together to perform a prior art search, interview an inventor, and draft patent claims over a …

The X Patents: Patents Issued Under The Patent Acts Of 1790 & 1793, Robert Berry

Librarian Publications

The earliest United States patents— sometimes called “name and date patents” because they were not numbered—are distinctive in many respects. Patent specifications were not required to include claims until the Patent Act of 1870. Moreover, while the 1790 Act required a substantive examination by a Patent Board, that requirement ended with the 1793 Act, when it was deemed too burdensome. Thereafter the evaluation of the sufficiency of patent specifications was left to the courts.

Testimony Before The House Committee On Energy And Commerce, Hearing On Patent Demand Letter Practices And Solutions, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A small number of patent holders have been abusing the patent system. These patent holders blanket the country with thousands of letters demanding that the recipients purchase a license for a few thousand dollars or else face an infringement suit. The letters are usually sent to small businesses and nonprofits that do not have the resources to investigate allegations of patent infringement. And the letters often contain false or misleading statements designed to scare the recipient into purchasing a license without investigating the claims of infringement. In an attempt to address this problem, eighteen states have recently passed statutes that, …

Court Competition For Patent Cases, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The traditional academic explanation for forum shopping is simple: litigants prefer to file cases in courts that offer some substantial advantage — either legal or procedural — over all other courts. But the traditional explanation fails to account for competition for litigants among courts. This Article suggests that forum shopping in patent law is driven in part by the creation of procedural and administrative distinctions among courts that are designed to attract, or in some cases to repel, patent litigants.

This Article makes two primary contributions to the literature, one theoretical and one normative. First, it theorizes that judicial competition …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Neither Party: Halo Elecs. Inc. V. Pulse Elecs. Inc. And Stryker Corp. V. Zimmer, Inc., Christopher B. Seaman, Jason Rantanen

Scholarly Articles

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of several intellectual property law professors in Halo v. Pulse and Stryker v. Zimmer regarding the appropriate standard for enhancing (increasing) damages under section 284 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 284. It advances three primary arguments. First, it asserts that in light of the history of the statutory text and judicial precedent, willful infringement is the appropriate standard (and thus the only valid basis) for awarding enhanced damages under § 284. Second, it contends that Federal Circuit’s two-part, objective/subjective test for determining willfulness articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, …

Patent Stewardship, Choice Of Law, And Weighing Competing Interests, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Xuan-Thao Nguyen’s recent article, "In the Name of Patent Stewardship: The Federal Circuit’s Overreach into Commercial Law", is important for at least two potential reasons that Nguyen herself highlights. First, to the extent that the Federal Circuit’s decisions related to commercial law differ from state courts’ decisions related to commercial law, it might call into question the Federal Circuit’s competency with respect to commercial law. And, second, it certainly highlights something that practitioners might need to know to adapt their advice and strategies for reaching their clients’ desired ends. But Nguyen’s critique is important for a third reason. Assuming the …

In The Stewardship Of Business Model Innovation, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz

Articles

Patent law scholars often criticize the Federal Circuit because they think it favors patentees. The Supreme Court has reinforced this scholarly critique by taking an usually large number of patent cases in recent years, often reversing the Federal Circuit and admonishing it to avoid patent law exceptionalism.

The Federal Circuit’s perceived patent law exceptionalism motivated Professor Xuan-Thao Nguyen to write her article In the Name of Patent Stewardship: The Federal Circuit’s Overreach into Commercial Law. Professor Nguyen’s concerns about damage to commercial law are not trifles. When it comes to the stewardship of our information economy, the laws that …

Patent Claim Interpretation Review: Deference Or Correction Driven?, Christopher A. Cotropia

Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the Federal Circuit's review of claim constructions by lower tribunals to determine whether the Federal Circuit defers to lower court constructions or is making its own, independent determination as to the "correct" construction and ultimate result in the case. The data collected from 2010 to 2013 indicates that the Federal Circuit affirms about 75% of lower court claim interpretations. While this finding is itself surprising, even more surprising is that these reviews do not appear to be driven by deference. Instead, the Federal Circuit is less likely to correct constructions that resulted in a patentee loss below, …

Alice Corp. V. Cls Bank Int'l, Jordana Goodman

Faculty Scholarship

Congress has the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."' Patent law subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101 creates a balance between incentivizing inventors to publicly disclose their knowledge and protecting the public from monopolies on ideas. Allowing inventors to monopolize the basic tools of scientific and technological work might "tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it."² "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" constitute unpatentable subject matter under section 101.³ The section 101 inquiry serves as a threshold test to determine if the subject matter of …