Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Saliency, Anchors & Frames: A Multicomponent Damages Experiment, Bernard Chao
Saliency, Anchors & Frames: A Multicomponent Damages Experiment, Bernard Chao
Michigan Technology Law Review
Modern technology products contain thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of different features. Nonetheless, when electronics manufacturers are sued for patent infringement, these suits typically accuse only one feature, or in more complex suits, a handful of features, of actual patent infringement. But damages verdicts often do not reflect the relatively small contribution an individual patent makes to an infringing product. One study observed that verdicts in these types of cases average 9.98% of the price of the entire product. While both courts and commentators have blamed the law of patent damages, the role cognitive biases play in these outsized damages …
Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams
Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes included, among other things, the abrogation of the Appendix of Forms, which contained templates for summons, complaints, answers, and other litigation documents. Prior to its abrogation, Form 18—a template for a “Complaint for Patent Infringement”—was widely utilized by patent plaintiffs in crafting infringement complaints. Form 18 was created during the Conley pleading regime, when conclusory allegations were generally sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the sample allegations in Form 18 were conclusory and bare-bones in nature. Under Conley, plaintiffs who followed this …
Patent Punting: How Fda And Antitrust Courts Undermine The Hatch-Waxman Act To Avoid Dealing With Patents, Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Daniel A. Crane
Patent Punting: How Fda And Antitrust Courts Undermine The Hatch-Waxman Act To Avoid Dealing With Patents, Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Daniel A. Crane
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, patent law and FDA regulation work together to determine the timing of generic entry in the market for drugs. But FDA has sought to avoid any responsibility for reading patents, insisting that its role in administering the patent provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act is purely ministerial. This gap in regulatory oversight has allowed innovators to use irrelevant patents to defer generic competition. Meanwhile, patent litigation has set the stage for anticompetitive settlements rather than adjudication of the patent issues in the courts. As these settlements have provoked antitrust litigation, antitrust courts have proven no more willing …
Res Or Rules - Patents And The (Uncertain) Rules Of The Game, Emily Michiko Morris
Res Or Rules - Patents And The (Uncertain) Rules Of The Game, Emily Michiko Morris
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
The Article proceeds as follows. Part I reviews the basics of patent claiming, the traditional view of claims as real property deeds, and why uncertainty as to the boundaries of those deeds is considered undesirable. Part II critiques the analogy between real property deeds and patent claims, highlighting in particular the requisite novelty and conceptual nature of the patent res, the differences between the purposes of the patent system and real property regimes, and the effect of these different purposes on the expected predictability of patent boundaries. Part III then changes the analogy from patent claims as property deeds to …
Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner
Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner
Michigan Law Review
During patent infringement litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and the federal district court's local rules govern the parties' pretrial discovery and motion practice. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has adopted the most comprehensive local rules to date covering pretrial procedures in the patent litigation context. The Northern District of California Patent Local Rules ("Local Rules") may come to have a significant impact throughout the federal courts, as it appears that other jurisdictions and commentators are looking to the Local Rules for guidance. For instance, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property …
Personal Jurisdiction Over Aliens In Patent Infringement Actions: A Uniform Approach Toward The Situs Of The Tort, David Wille
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 …
Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.
Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Petitioner brought a patent infringement action in the northern district of Texas, wherein the alleged infringement occurred and the named defendants resided and had a regular place of business. On motion by the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), authorizing the transfer of certain actions to a district in which the action "might have been brought," the court ordered transfer to the northern district of Illinois where litigation on the same patent was already in progress between the plaintiff and other alleged infringers. Petitioner's motion for mandamus to require the Texas district court to set aside this transfer order was …