Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Back To The Future: The Revival Of Pennoyer In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine And The Demise Of International Shoe, Robert M. Bloom, Janine A. Hanrahan Oct 2019

Back To The Future: The Revival Of Pennoyer In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine And The Demise Of International Shoe, Robert M. Bloom, Janine A. Hanrahan

San Diego Law Review

This Article argues that the Court’s recent decisions have effectively revived Pennoyer’s focus on physical presence and status, at the expense of the fairness and contact considerations set forth in International Shoe, as the bases for asserting personal jurisdiction. Part II details the jurisdictional analysis under both Pennoyer and International Shoe. Part III discusses the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine under International Shoe. Part IV demonstrates that the Court’s recent decisions have revitalized Pennoyer’s territorially based regime, and consequently diminished the thrust of International Shoe.


The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman Oct 2019

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

San Diego Law Review

This article maintains that, under defined circumstances, a judge should be able to grant an injunction that forbids the defendant’s proved defamation. It analyzes the common law of defamation, the constitutional prior restraint doctrine, the constitutional protection for defamation that stems from New York Times v. Sullivan, and injunctions and their enforcement.

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court expanded protection for expression by adding an injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgment for defamation. An injunction that forbids the defendant’s …


Update On Antitrust And Pay-For-Delay: Evaluating “No Authorized Generic” And “Exclusive License” Provisions In Hatch-Waxman Settlements, Saami Zain Aug 2018

Update On Antitrust And Pay-For-Delay: Evaluating “No Authorized Generic” And “Exclusive License” Provisions In Hatch-Waxman Settlements, Saami Zain

San Diego Law Review

In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the United States Supreme Court held that a patent litigation settlement where a branded drug company pays a generic drug company to end the litigation and delay launching its generic may violate the antitrust laws. Although the decision ended years of controversy over whether such settlements were subject to antitrust scrutiny, many issues remain unresolved concerning the lawfulness of these settlements. In particular, courts have struggled in assessing the legality of patent settlements between branded and generic drug manufacturers involving non-cash compensation or benefits. This article discusses one type of non-cash compensation that is …


Looking For Venue In The Patently Right Places: A Parallel Study Of The Venue Act And Venue In Anda Litigation, Mengke Xing Aug 2018

Looking For Venue In The Patently Right Places: A Parallel Study Of The Venue Act And Venue In Anda Litigation, Mengke Xing

San Diego Law Review

Like any other type of litigation, venue is often an important strategic decision for patent infringement litigants. Under the traditional nation-wide venue rule, a patent owner was able to sue a corporate defendant almost in every district in the country, giving rise to abusive forum shopping and the popularity of the Eastern District of Texas. Last year, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland dramatically changed the legal framework of venue in patent litigation, while leaving some issues unaddressed. After a discussion of the evolvement of venue laws and the significance of TC Heartland, this Comment focuses on the Venue Equity …


Alternative Liability In Litigation Malpractice Actions: Eradicating The Last Resort Of Scoundrels, Lawrence W. Kessler Jan 2000

Alternative Liability In Litigation Malpractice Actions: Eradicating The Last Resort Of Scoundrels, Lawrence W. Kessler

San Diego Law Review

The legal malpractice tort, however, has managed to withstand the winds of legal change. Particularly crucial has been the refusal to apply alternative causation doctrines. The refusal to apply causation doctrines that have been embraced in other areas has significant social effects. As a result, the consumers of legal services receive less protection from the courts than do the consumers of products or medical services.