Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski
Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
An individual is liable for patent infringement if he infringes one or more patented claims either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or § 271(c). In 2012, the Federal Circuit clarified its interpretation of § 271(b) and § 271(c) in the case of Akamai v. Limelight. However, the court failed to address issues of “divided” direct infringement, where two or more entities combine and together complete each and every step of a method claim, but no single entity does all of the steps. This Note walks through the history of the judicial interpretation …
Environmental Law At The Crossroads: Looking Back 25, Looking Forward 25, Richard J. Lazarus
Environmental Law At The Crossroads: Looking Back 25, Looking Forward 25, Richard J. Lazarus
Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law
Twenty-five years used to seem like an exceedingly long time. It certainly did when I was graduating from law school and not yet twentyfive. My perspective on time, however, has (naturally) since evolved, much as environmental law itself and the controversies surrounding it have, too, evolved. The contrast between environmental law twenty-five years ago and environmental law today is remarkable and makes clear that environmental law and lawmaking were changing in fundamental ways a generation ago, but those changes are revealed only now with the aid of hindsight. To be sure, the statutory texts of domestic environmental law are strikingly …
Preemption And Choice-Of-Law Coordination, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein
Preemption And Choice-Of-Law Coordination, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein
Michigan Law Review
The doctrine treating federal preemption of state law has been plagued by uncertainty and confusion. Part of the problem is that courts purport to interpret congressional intent when often Congress has never considered the particular preemption question at issue. This Article suggests that courts deciding preemption cases should take seriously a commonly articulated rationale for the federalization of law: the need to coordinate applicable legal standards in order to facilitate a national market or to otherwise provide clear guidance to parties regarding the laws that apply to their conduct. In situations where federal law can serve a coordinating function but …