Law Commons^™

Invention, Refinement And Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective On The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Craig Allen Nard

Faculty Publications

The doctrine of equivalents (DOE) allows courts to expand the scope of patent rights granted by the Patent Office. The doctrine has been justified on fairness grounds, but it lacks a convincing economic justification. The standard economic justification holds that certain frictions block patent applicants from literally claiming appropriately broad rights, and thus, the DOE is available at trial to expand patent scope and overcome these frictions. The friction theory suffers from three main weaknesses. First, the theory is implausible on empirical grounds. Frictions such as limits of language, mistake, and unforeseeability are missing from the leading cases. Second, there …

Symposium - Incomplete Contracts: Judicial Responses, Transactional Planning, And Litigation Strategies - Introduction, Juliet P. Kostritsky

Faculty Publications

This introduction introduces three articles in a Symposium by Richard Craswell, Avery Katz, Robert Scott and George Triantis on the topic of incomplete contracts. The Symposium appears in 56 CASE WES. L. REV. 135 (2005).

The recognition that parties will often fail to achieve completely contingent contracts that provide for an optimal outcome in any future state of the world raises the important question of what role courts could or should play in such contracts.

Scholars working in the law-and-economics tradition have suggested that courts should use a hypothetical bargain approach to incompleteness, filling in terms that are optimal (efficient) …

Comment: The Case For Real Shareholder Democracy, George W. Dent

Faculty Publications

Comment on presentations at The Georege A. Leet Business Law Symposium: Corporate Governance: Directors v. Shapreholders, Cleveland, Ohio, 2005.

The George A. Leet Business Law Symposium: Corporate Governance: Directors Vs. Shareholders? - Introduction, George W. Dent

Faculty Publications

Introducation to The George A. Leet Business Law Symposium: Corporate Governance: Directors vs. Shareholders?, Cleveland, Ohio.

Is Morrison Dead? Assessing A Supreme Drug (Law) Overdose, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

There was little doubt that the federal government would prevail in Gonzales v. Raich. What was, perhaps, unexpected was so expansive a repudiation of enforceable judicial limitations on federal power. In upholding the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act as applied to the non-commercial intrastate possession and consumption of marijuana for medical purposes as authorized under California law, the Supreme Court hollowed out the core of contemporary commerce clause jurisprudence. Insofar as United States v. Morrison had stood for the propositions that only intrastate economic activities could be aggregated for purposes of the "substantial effects" test, that attenuated connections between …

Judicial Federalism And The Future Of Federal Environmental Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

This article assesses the current and likely impact of the Supreme Court's federalism cases on federal environmental regulation. As a result of this assessment, the article seeks to make four points: (1) Thus far, the Supreme Court's federalism cases have had a limited impact on federal regulation, as federal courts have not used these cases as a basis for limiting the reach of federal regulatory authority. (2) Notwithstanding this limited impact, the underlying logic of the Supreme Court's cases does pose a challenge for federal regulation, particularly in the Commerce Clause context. (3) The thrust of the federalism cases makes …

Do Former Leaders Have An International Right To Act As Their Own Lawyer In War Crimes Trials?, Michael P. Scharf, Christopher Rassi

Faculty Publications

Picture what would happen if former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sought to represent himself at his war crimes trial before the Iraqi Special Tribunal. While doing so, assume that the judge presiding over his case decided to follow the precedent of the Trial Chamber of the International

Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) that tried the case of Slobodan Milosevic, which held: "[U]nder customary international law, the defendant has a right to counsel, but he also has a right not to have counsel."

The Descendants Of Fassihi: A Comparative Analysis Of Recent Cases Addressing The Fiduciary Claims Of Disgruntled Constituents Against Attorneys Representing Closely-Held Entities, Matthew Rossman

Faculty Publications

Accordingly, this Article will examine three recent cases closely and then make observations about what these "descendants of Fassihi" say about the state of the law and how they should impact attorney behavior. To provide proper context for this discussion, a short summary of Fassihi and other contemporary responses to the issues raised in Fassihi follows.