Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (19)
- Selected Works (6)
- University of Michigan Law School (6)
- University of Missouri School of Law (5)
- Georgetown University Law Center (3)
-
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- BLR (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- SelectedWorks (2)
- The University of Akron (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Fordham Law School (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Pepperdine University (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (1)
- University of San Diego (1)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- All Faculty Scholarship (22)
- Faculty Publications (5)
- Aaron Edlin (3)
- Articles (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
-
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (2)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (2)
- ExpressO (2)
- Michigan Law Review (2)
- Akron Law Faculty Publications (1)
- D. Daniel Sokol (1)
- Diego G. Pardow (1)
- Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Joshua P. Davis (1)
- Kelly J. Bozanic (1)
- Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review (1)
- Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice (1)
- Pepperdine Law Review (1)
- Presentations (1)
- Robert L Tucker (1)
- San Diego Law Review (1)
- Scholarly Works (1)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (1)
- Wenhao Leu (1)
- Western Water Law, Policy and Management: Ripples, Currents, and New Channels for Inquiry (Martz Summer Conference, June 3-5) (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 61 - 64 of 64
Full-Text Articles in Law
Litigation As A Predatory Practice, Gary Myers
Litigation As A Predatory Practice, Gary Myers
Faculty Publications
This article reviews and evaluates the sham litigation case law, finding that many courts have allowed immunity too readily or on inappropriate grounds. It attempts to develop comprehensive standards for antitrust claims based on sham litigation.
Sanctions, Symmetry, And Safe Harbors: Limiting Misapplication Of Rule 11 By Harmonizing It With Pre-Verdict Dismissal Devices, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Sanctions, Symmetry, And Safe Harbors: Limiting Misapplication Of Rule 11 By Harmonizing It With Pre-Verdict Dismissal Devices, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
With only a small risk of overstatement, one could say that sanctions in civil litigation exploded during the 1980s, with the 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 acting as the principal catalyst. From 1938 until the 1983 amendment, only two dozen or so cases on Rule 11 were reported, with courts rarely imposing sanctions. Although a few cases were notable by virtue of sanction size, prestige of the firm sanctioned, or publicity attending the underlying case, the legal profession largely regarded Rule 11 as a dead letter. In addition, other sanctions provisions, such as Federal Rule of …
Recent Decisions, Timothy J. Peaden, Charles S. Baugh, Marc W. Joseph, Melissa Q. Windham
Recent Decisions, Timothy J. Peaden, Charles S. Baugh, Marc W. Joseph, Melissa Q. Windham
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
Antitrust--Noerr-Pennington Extends Immunity from Sherman Act to Foreign Litigation and Foreign Acts that result in Alleged Antitrust Violations, Coastal States Marketing, Inc. v. Hunt, 694 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. 1983).
Antitrust--Foreign Import Cartels are Liable under the Sherman Act although domestic export competitors are shielded with a Webb-Pomerene exemption. Daishowa International v. North Coast Export Co., 1982-2 Trade Cas.64,774 (N.D. Cal.).
Patents - Licensing - Legality Of Grant-Back Clauses, Eric E. Bergsten S.Ed.
Patents - Licensing - Legality Of Grant-Back Clauses, Eric E. Bergsten S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
There is no authoritative definition of the term "patent grant-back." It has been defined as a clause in a patent license which provides "for license or assignment to the licensor of any improvement patented by the licensee in the products or processes of the licensed patent." In litigated cases grant-back clauses usually appear either in basic patent licenses or in licenses of the products or processes of an industry which the licensor dominates through control of a multitude of overlapping patents.