Law Commons^™

Will Delaware Be Different? An Empirical Study Of Tc Heartland And The Shift To Defendant Choice Of Venue, Ofer Eldar, Neel U. Sukhatme

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Why do some venues evolve into litigation havens while others do not? Venues might compete for litigation for various reasons, like enhancing their judges’ prestige and increasing revenues for the local bar. This competition is framed by the party that chooses the venue. Whether plaintiffs or defendants primarily choose venue is crucial because, we argue, the two scenarios are not symmetrical.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods LLC illustrates this dynamic. There, the Court effectively shifted venue choice in many patent infringement cases from plaintiffs to corporate defendants. We use TC Heartland to empirically …

Court Capture, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Capture — the notion that a federal agency can become controlled by the industry the agency is supposed to be regulating — is a fundamental concern for administrative law scholars. Surprisingly, however, no thorough treatment of how capture theory applies to the federal judiciary has been done. The few scholars who have attempted to apply the insights of capture theory to federal courts have generally concluded that the federal courts are insulated from capture concerns.

This Article challenges the notion that the federal courts cannot be captured. It makes two primary arguments. As an initial matter, this Article makes the …

Patents Absent Adversaries, Sarah R. Wasserman Rajec

Brooklyn Law Review

The adversarial system is lauded for determining the truth of claims, safeguarding procedural rights, and supporting the efficient direction of resources toward the most relevant and contested issues in a dispute. If a case proceeded to judgment with participation from only one party, it would raise concerns of justice, efficiency, accuracy, and the public interest. And yet, in a tribunal of steadily growing importance for intellectual property disputes—the International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission)—certain cases proceed without the benefit of participation from adverse parties. Following the default of named parties, administrative law judges determine the scope and validity of patent …

Ip Litigation In U.S. District Courts: 1994-2014, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

This Article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of intellectual property ("IP") litigation in U.S. federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent, and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of the records of more than 190,000 cases filed in federal courts and examines the subject matter, geographical, and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades.

This Article analyzes changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution. The key findings of this Article stem from an attempt …

The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Trade secrecy is unique among the major intellectual property (IP) doctrines because it is governed primarily by state law. Recently, however, a number of influential actors — including legislators, academics, and organizations representing IP attorneys and owners — have proposed creating a private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation under federal law. Proponents assert that federalizing trade secrecy would provide numerous benefits, including substantive uniformity, the availability of a federal forum for misappropriation litigation, and the creation of a unified national regime governing IP rights. This Article engages in the first systematic critique of the claim that federalizing …

The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

Trade secrecy is unique among the major intellectual property (IP) doctrines because it is governed primarily by state law. Recently, however, a number of influential actors — including legislators, academics, and organizations representing IP attorneys and owners — have proposed creating a private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation under federal law. Proponents assert that federalizing trade secrecy would provide numerous benefits, including substantive uniformity, the availability of a federal forum for misappropriation litigation, and the creation of a unified national regime governing IP rights.

This Article engages in the first systematic critique of the claim that federalizing …

Logic, Not Evidence, Supports A Change In Expert Testimony Standards: Why Evidentiary Standards Promulgated By The Supreme Court For Scientific Expert Testimony Are Inappropriate And Inefficient When Applied In Patent Infringement Suits, Claire R. Rollor

Journal of Business & Technology Law

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 …

An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical Analysis Of The 'Sword' Of State Sovereign Immunity In State-Owned Patents, Tejas N. Narechania

Tejas N. Narechania

Indirect Infringement From A Tort Law Perspective, Charles W. Adams

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can A Bankrupt Company Assign Its Patent License To The Highest Bidder, Even When The License Itself Forbids Assignment? Why Everex Systems, Inc. V. Cadtrak Corp. Gives An Unconvincing Answer, Matthew D. Siegel

ExpressO

A patent licensee that declares bankruptcy will often want to assign its rights under the license to another party in exchange for much-needed cash. The Bankruptcy Code generally allows debtors to assign executory contracts, including patent licenses, in this way. Indeed, the Code permits debtors to assign a contract even if the contract itself contains a “no-assign” clause, i.e., a clause expressly forbidding assignment. But there is an exception: The Code will defer to certain kinds of otherwise applicable non-bankruptcy law that would normally prevent the contract from being assigned. In particular, the Code will not allow assignment by a …