Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Road To Marshall: Of Venue, Trolls, And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jesus Efren Cano
The Road To Marshall: Of Venue, Trolls, And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jesus Efren Cano
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
No abstract provided.
The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor
The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor
Chicago-Kent Law Review
No abstract provided.
Limiting Downstream Effects Of Patent Licensing Activity In Software And Electronics: An Argument For Alienability Of Patent Licenses To Licensees' Business Successors, Anna A. Onley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Frustrating the ability to transfer ownership is costly, and non-creative entities (NCEs) may contribute to rising costs of innovation by contractually requiring their licensees to seek NCE consent to subsequent license transfers. One possible way of gradually limiting the reach of NCEs in this area is to expand the doctrine of patent misuse—which supports the unenforceability defense to patent infringement—to construe restraints on alienation of patent licenses as patent misuse. This narrowly tailored approach, discussed in this Note, minimizes the risk of negative impact on the patent system because it avoids the question of patent invalidity and does not seek …
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. V. Marchon Eyewear, Inc. And Brain Life, Llc. V. Elekta, Inc.: Irreconcilable Conflict In The Law Governing Claim Preclusion In Patent Cases, Christopher Petroni
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. V. Marchon Eyewear, Inc. And Brain Life, Llc. V. Elekta, Inc.: Irreconcilable Conflict In The Law Governing Claim Preclusion In Patent Cases, Christopher Petroni
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
In 1991, the Federal Circuit held that a judgment on the merits in a patent infringement action bars future claims based on products that are “essentially the same” as the product at issue in the former suit. This rule governed claim preclusion in patent actions until at least 2009. Then, in 2012, the Federal Circuit upended the apple cart with Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012), holding that a judgment in an infringement suit never bars future claims against products that could not have been accused in the former litigation, essentially the …
Have We Gone Too Far: Does The Seventh Amendment Compel Fact-Finding Before Reaching A Decision On Patent-Eligible Subject Matter?, Jesse D.H. Snyder
Have We Gone Too Far: Does The Seventh Amendment Compel Fact-Finding Before Reaching A Decision On Patent-Eligible Subject Matter?, Jesse D.H. Snyder
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
No abstract provided.
Patent Litigation Attorneys' Fees: Shifting From Status To Conduct, Daniel Roth
Patent Litigation Attorneys' Fees: Shifting From Status To Conduct, Daniel Roth
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
Abusive patent assertion results in deadweight losses to society. Faced with the high cost of patent litigation, companies often settle for an amount equal to a fraction of the cost of defending a patent infringement suit. This allows the patent owner to extract settlements from many individuals without the risk of invalidation before a federal court. Shifting attorneys' fees to the prevailing party is a remedy courts award in exceptional cases to deter patent owners from bringing unreasonable claims of infringement and to return defendants to the position they were in prior to litigation. Current fee-shifting proposals target patent assertion …
Reasonable Royalties And The Calculation Of Patent Damages: Reflections And Recommendations For A Fair And Adequate Calculating Basis Of Reasonable Royalties In Terms Of Harmonization Of China-Taiwan Regional Patent Laws, Chung-Lun Shen
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
Among the substantive issues of patent law, patent enforcement has received increasing focus in the global community. Owing to the intangibility of patents, and in view of the symmetry of exclusive rights with damages, courts and juries have difficulty calculating appropriate damages for patent infringement. Compared with the traditional calculation of patent damages, which rests upon the patentee’s losses or infringer’s profits, the basis of reasonable royalties provides a flexible concept for accommodating damages when the patentee cannot adequately prove damages, especially, when the patented or infringing products were not available in the market at the time of infringement. Until …
Willful Patent Infringement After In Re Seagate: Just What Is "Objectively Reckless" Infringement?, Randy R. Micheletti
Willful Patent Infringement After In Re Seagate: Just What Is "Objectively Reckless" Infringement?, Randy R. Micheletti
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically change the rules for proving willful patent infringement—and justifying enhanced damages—in In re Seagate Technology. A patentee alleging willful infringement must now first prove "by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent." He must then show that the objectively defined risk was "either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer." The court expressly delegated substantive development of the new test to future cases. Because district …
Licensee Beware: The Seventh Circuit Holds That A Patent License By Any Other Name Is Not The Same, Cameron R. Sneddon
Licensee Beware: The Seventh Circuit Holds That A Patent License By Any Other Name Is Not The Same, Cameron R. Sneddon
Seventh Circuit Review
In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly held that a settlement agreement for patent infringement may never be considered a license. In Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. v. Haworth, Inc., the court mischaracterizes the nature of license agreements and their relationship to the rights of patent holders. It does so by drawing a potential false dichotomy between settlements and licensing agreements. In this holding, the court misunderstands the purpose of a license agreement, its legal effects, and its dual prospective and retrospective qualities as recognized by the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts.