Law Commons^™

Holding Standards For Randsome: A Remedial Perspective On Rand Licensing Commitments, Layne S. Keele

Layne S. Keele

In Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the four federal judges who considered the case—Judge Posner by designation at the trial level, and three Federal Circuit judges on appeal—all expressed differing opinions on the question of whether and to what extent extraordinary patent remedies should be available for the infringement of standard-essential patents. This article aims to simplify this muddled and confusing topic.

The article employs a teleological approach, examining the purposes behind remedies in general, the purposes of extraordinary remedies in patent law, and the purposes of RAND commitments (commitments to license standard-essential …

Definitions, Religion, And Free Exercise Guarantees, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Non-religious practices do not receive those same protections, which makes the ability to distinguish between religious and non-religious practices important. Regrettably, members of the Court have been unable to agree about how to distinguish the religious from the non-religious—sometimes, the implicit criteria focus on the sincerity of the beliefs, sometimes the strength of the beliefs or the role that they play in an individual’s life, and sometimes the kind of beliefs. In short, the Court has virtually guaranteed an incoherent jurisprudence by sending contradictory signals with …