Law Commons^™

Reconciling The Lanham Act And The Fdca: A Comment On Chris Hurley’S Note, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

No abstract provided.

Tribute To Professor Sally Wiant, Laura N. Gasaway, James Heller, Ann Maclean Massie, Brian C. Murchison, Caroline L. Osborne, Christopher B. Seaman, Joan Shaughnessy, Joseph A. Ulrich, Christopher Wolf

Christopher B. Seaman

No abstract provided.

Patent Injunctions On Appeal: An Empirical Study Of The Federal Circuit's Application Of Ebay, Christopher B. Seaman, Ryan T. Holte

Christopher B. Seaman

More than ten years after the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in eBay v. MercExchange, the availability of injunctive relief in patent cases remains hotly contested. For example, in a recent decision in the long-running litigation between Apple and Samsung, members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit divided sharply on whether an injunction was warranted to prevent Samsung from continuing to infringe several smartphone features patented by Apple. To date, however, nearly all empirical scholarship regarding eBay has focused on trial court decisions, rather than the Federal Circuit. This Article represents the first comprehensive …

Introduction: The Defend Trade Secrets Act Of 2015, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

This is an introduction to a Roundtable on the Defend Trade Secrets Act published by the Washington and Lee Law Review Online in 2015.

Introduction: The Defend Trade Secrets Act Of 2015, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

This is an introduction to a Roundtable on the Defend Trade Secrets Act published by the Washington and Lee Law Review Online in 2015.

Permanent Injunctions In Patent Litigation After Ebay: An Empirical Study, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

American Innovation And The Limits Of Patent Law: A Response To William Hubbard, Competitive Patent Law, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

In his recent article Competitive Patent Law, Professor William Hubbard makes a valuable contribution regarding an underexplored aspect of patent law’s ability to encourage innovation — namely, “whether U.S. patent law can be tailored to provide U.S. innovators with enhanced incentives to invent” compared to foreign rivals, and thus by extension make American firms more competitive in the global marketplace. This brief response addresses three aspects of Professor Hubbard’s thoughtful and well-written article. First, it critiques the article’s contention that the United States is currently facing an “innovation gap.” Second, it critically evaluates the claim that patent law can play …

Standards Of Proof In Civil Litigation: An Experiment From Patent Law, David L. Schwartz, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Standards of proof are widely assumed to matter in litigation. They operate to allocate the risk of error between litigants, as well as to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision. But despite their perceived importance, there have been relatively few empirical studies testing jurors’ comprehension and application of standards of proof, particularly in civil litigation. Patent law recently presented an opportunity to assess the potential impact of varying the standard of proof in civil cases. In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, the Supreme Court held that a patent’s presumption of validity can only be overcome by …

The End Of Preclearance As We Knew It: How The Supreme Court Transformed Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act, Peyton Mccrary, Christopher B. Seaman, Richard Valelly

Christopher B. Seaman

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to obtain “preclearance” of proposed electoral changes from the United States Department of Justice or a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This provision, which is set to expire in August 2007, has successfully reduced racial and ethnic discrimination in voting.The United States Supreme Court determined in a 5-4 decision, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 230 (2000), that Section 5's prohibition on the enforcement of electoral changes which have a discriminatory purpose …

The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Trade secrecy is unique among the major intellectual property (IP) doctrines because it is governed primarily by state law. Recently, however, a number of influential actors — including legislators, academics, and organizations representing IP attorneys and owners — have proposed creating a private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation under federal law. Proponents assert that federalizing trade secrecy would provide numerous benefits, including substantive uniformity, the availability of a federal forum for misappropriation litigation, and the creation of a unified national regime governing IP rights. This Article engages in the first systematic critique of the claim that federalizing …

Comment On “Groove Is In The Hart”: A Workable Solution For Applying The Right Of Publicity To Video Games, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

No abstract provided.

Introduction: The Defend Trade Secrets Act Of 2015, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Standards Of Proof In Civil Litigation: An Experiment From Patent Law, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

No abstract provided.

Best Mode Trade Secrets, Brian J. Love, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Trade secrecy and patent rights traditionally have been considered mutually exclusive. Trade secret rights are premised on secrecy. Patent rights, on the other hand, require public disclosure. Absent a sufficiently detailed description of the invention, patents are invalid. However, with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) last fall, this once black-and-white distinction may melt into something a little more gray. Now, an inventor’s failure to disclose in her patent the preferred method for carrying out the invention — the so-called “best mode” — will no longer invalidate her patent rights or otherwise render them unenforceable. In this …

Willful Patent Infringement And Enhanced Damages After In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Willful patent infringement is a critical issue in patent litigation, as it can result in an award of up to treble (enhanced) damages. In a 2007 decision, In re Seagate, the Federal Circuit significantly altered the standard governing willful infringement by requiring the patentee to prove at least "objective recklessness" by the accused infringer. Many observers predicted that this heightened standard would result in far fewer willfulness findings and enhanced damage awards. To date, however, there has been no comprehensive empirical study of Seagate's actual impact in patent litigation. This Article fills that gap by analyzing six years of district …

The Changing Damages Regime: Reasonable Royalties After Lucent And Willful Infringement And Enhanced Damages After Seagate, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

No abstract provided.

An Uncertain Future For Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act: The Need For A Revised Bailout System, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder ("NAMUDNO"), 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), the Supreme Court declined to decide one of the 2008 Term's most prominent issues: the constitutionality of the 2006 renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Court adopted an unexpected statutory construction permitting the plaintiff to seek an exemption called "bailout" from continued coverage under this provision. But even though the Court avoided directly ruling on its constitutionality, NAMUDNO left little doubt that Section 5 remains on uncertain constitutional ground. A revised bailout system is likely the best approach for …

Reconsidering The Georgia-Pacific Standard For Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Determining damages for infringement is one of the most important—and controversial—issues in current patent litigation. The current fifteen-factor Georgia-Pacific standard for determining a reasonable royalty has become increasingly difficult for juries to apply in patent disputes involving complex, high-technology products, resulting in unpredictable damage awards that tend to overcompensate patentees. This Article proposes a more manageable alternative to Georgia-Pacific when an acceptable noninfringing substitute for the patented technology exists. Specifically, in a hypothetical bargain for a patent license, both economic and negotiation theory explain that a rational patent licensor would agree to pay only the costs it would incur to …