Law Commons^™

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 …

A Balanced Consideration Of The Federal Circuit’S Choice-Of-Law Rule, Jennifer E. Sturiale

Utah Law Review

The Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is unique. Unlike the jurisdiction of all other U.S. courts of appeals, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is defined not by its geographical boundaries, but rather by the subject matter of the original claims and compulsory counterclaims. The court has appellate jurisdiction over final decisions from all U.S. district courts if a plaintiff’s claim or a party’s counterclaim arises under the patent laws. From this unusual jurisdictional grant, the Federal Circuit has concluded that, as a policy matter, it should apply and develop its own law only if the legal issue pertains to patent law. For all …

Rising Confusion About 'Arising Under' Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

By statute, all cases “arising under” patent law must be heard exclusively by the federal courts (not state courts) and, on appeal, by the Federal Circuit (not the twelve regional circuits). But not all cases involving patents “arise under” patent law. As recently as 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere need to apply patent law in, for example, a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer, is insufficient to trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held, for a case that does not involve claims of patent infringement to arise under patent law, the patent issue must be “important . …

Reining In A 'Renegade' Court: Tc Heartland And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Supreme Court tightened the venue requirement for patent cases, making it more difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a district court has venue over a defendant. Many commentators, however, view TC Heartland as merely a “reshuffling” of the district courts that receive patent cases. Whereas before the case, a large percentage of patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, now, after TC Heartland, various other U.S. district courts (principally, the District of Delaware) have experienced an increase in patent infringement filings. Some commentators are unconvinced that this …

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.

Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.

Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …

Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …

Dissenting State Patent Regimes, Camilla A. Hrdy

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Explaining The Supreme Court's Interest In Patent Law, Timothy R. Holbrook

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Recalibrating Our Empirical Understanding Of Inequitable Conduct, Jason Rantanen

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Let's Talk About Text: Contracts, Claims, And Judicial Philosophy At The Federal Circuit, Andrew T. Langford

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Newman, J., Dissenting: Another Vision Of The Federal Circuit, Blake R. Hartz

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

Differentiating The Federal Circuit, Elizabeth I. Winston

Scholarly Articles

In 1982, Congress created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Often referred to as an experiment, the Federal Circuit has flourished. Born again from the ashes of its predecessors, the aptly nicknamed Phoenix Court continues to grow in significance, stature, and strength. As it grows, however, the court remains rooted in its history and in its unique nature. This Article explores the Federal Circuit’s structure and its impact on the development of Federal Circuit jurisprudence. The Federal Circuit is distinguishable by more than its national jurisdiction – the very essence of the court sets it apart …

Sandisk Corp. V. Stmicroelectronics, Inc., Patrick R. Colsher

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arising Under Jurisdiction And Uniformity In Patent Law, Christopher A. Cotropia

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The law governing the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction was brought into question in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Circulation Systems, Inc. The Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction over Vornado's appeal rested solely on Vornado's counterclaim alleging patent infringement by Holmes. Holmes's complaint sought a declaratory judgment of no trade dress infringement and did not include any patent law claims. While the Federal Circuit found appellate jurisdiction over Vornado's appeal based on the counterclaim of patent infringement, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court focused on the language in 35 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which defines the Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction by the statute's …

Personal Jurisdiction Over Aliens In Patent Infringement Actions: A Uniform Approach Toward The Situs Of The Tort, David Wille

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines current approaches to the question of personal jurisdiction over alien patent infringers. Part I describes personal jurisdiction requirements in the context of patent infringement suits against aliens. The leading case addressing these requirements has been interpreted differently by several courts, thus resulting in conflicting outcomes. Part II explains the current controversy over the locus of the tort of patent infringement. The three different modes of reasoning currently used by courts to determine the locus of the tort would allow immunity from suit for the alien in at least two hypothetical cases. This Part concludes that in order …

Specialized Courts In Administrative Law, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.