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

Law Commons

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

UIC School of Law

Journal

2017

Civil Procedure

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Veil Piercing And Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance In Supplemental Proceedings: How Expanding Statutory Remedies And Enforcement Jurisdiction Can Promote Judicial Economy And Facilitate Judgment Collection, 50 J. Marshall L. Rev. 279 (2017), Guy Macarol Jan 2017

Veil Piercing And Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance In Supplemental Proceedings: How Expanding Statutory Remedies And Enforcement Jurisdiction Can Promote Judicial Economy And Facilitate Judgment Collection, 50 J. Marshall L. Rev. 279 (2017), Guy Macarol

UIC Law Review

This comment will highlight the advantages of consolidating fraudulent transfer avoidance claims and piercing actions within supplemental proceedings, particularly with respect to the important goals of promoting judicial economy and the successful collection of judgments.


Tc Heartland Llc V. Kraft Foods Group Brands And The Big Debate About East Texas: How A Delaware Case Leaves Patent Venue Unsettled And Presages As Applied Challenges To The Constitutionality Of Narrow Venue Interpretations, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 232 (2017), Jesse Snyder Jan 2017

Tc Heartland Llc V. Kraft Foods Group Brands And The Big Debate About East Texas: How A Delaware Case Leaves Patent Venue Unsettled And Presages As Applied Challenges To The Constitutionality Of Narrow Venue Interpretations, 17 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 232 (2017), Jesse Snyder

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Lack of sanguinity for patent holders was manifest after the Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017, opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. Yet whether TC Heartland—a case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware—represents a fait accompli against forum shopping remains debatable. Writing for the Court in a unanimous opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s interpretation that an intervening amendment to the general venue statute broadened the scope of venue for patent cases. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that “[a]ny civil …