Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Caseloads (1)
- Claim construction (1)
- Complaints (1)
- Construction interrogatory (1)
- Consumers (1)
-
- Discrimination (1)
- Doctrine of equivalents (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Extrinsic evidence (1)
- Facts (1)
- History (1)
- In re Convergent Technologies (1)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1)
- Markman hearing (1)
- Monopoly right (1)
- Northern District of California Patent Local Rules (1)
- Patent infringement (1)
- Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co. (1)
- Pleadings (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Rule 11 (1)
- Rule 33(c) (1)
- View Engineering v. Robotic Vision Systems (1)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics Inc. (1)
- Vivid Technologies v. American Science & Engineering Inc. (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner
Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner
Michigan Law Review
During patent infringement litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and the federal district court's local rules govern the parties' pretrial discovery and motion practice. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has adopted the most comprehensive local rules to date covering pretrial procedures in the patent litigation context. The Northern District of California Patent Local Rules ("Local Rules") may come to have a significant impact throughout the federal courts, as it appears that other jurisdictions and commentators are looking to the Local Rules for guidance. For instance, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property …
Purchasing While Black: How Courts Condone Discrimination In The Marketplace, Matt Graves
Purchasing While Black: How Courts Condone Discrimination In The Marketplace, Matt Graves
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Given the sweeping language of § 1981 and 1982, it cannot be that sellers of goods can engage in intentional discrimination, so long as they make relatively minor attempts to cover it up. By exploring the interaction between substantive law, procedural law, legal culture, and real-world context, Graves seeks to demonstrate that judges cannot offer any legal or practical justification for heightened pleading requirements in § 1981 and 1982 actions. Through this argument, a conclusion is reached that § 1981 and 1982 plaintiffs must be given the same opportunity to litigate their claims that virtually all other plaintiffs are given. …