Law Commons^™

Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic

Michigan Law Review

Specific exclusion has become a controversial limitation on the doctrine of equivalents, which is itself an essential and controversial area of patent law. The doctrine of equivalents allows a patentee to successfully claim infringement against devices that are outside of the literal reach of the language used by the patentee in her patent to describe what she claims as her invention. The Supreme Court has prescribed some of the outer limits of the doctrine of equivalents and articulated the underlying policy concerns that inform its analysis-noting that courts should balance protection of the patentee's intellectual property with the public's reasonable …

Significant Developments In Veterans Law (2004-2006) And What They Reveal About The U.S. Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims And The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit, Michael P. Allen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Nearly twenty years ago, Congress for the first time created a system for judicial review of decisions denying veterans benefits. Specifically, Congress created an Article I Court: the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Veterans dissatisfied with actions of the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding benefits could appeal to the Veterans Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided appellate oversight of the Veterans Court. There simply is nothing like the Veterans Court elsewhere in American law. Yet, despite its uniqueness, there has been little scholarly attention to this institution.

This Article begins to …

Making Sense Of Ksr And Other Recent Patent Cases, Harold C. Wegner

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The recent Supreme Court review of KSR International Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, and Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. manifests the Court’s current interest in the patent jurisprudence of the Fed-eral Circuit. Now it is evident that the Court has a level of concern sufficient to guarantee the possibility of grant of certiorari—whereas formerly a case could rarely generate sufficient interest for review. For long-range impor-tance in patent law, KSR stands alone as the single most important Supreme Court patent decision on the bread and butter standard of “obviousness” in the more than forty years since …

Ksr's Effect On Patent Law, Stephen G. Kunin, Andrew K. Beverina

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. clarified its 1966 decision in Graham v. John Deere, avoiding the sea change to a synergy- based standard that many had expected—and perhaps feared. KSR has raised the bar set in Graham for seeking patent protection—by providing a flexible test for obviousness—while simultaneously making it easier for accused infringers to defend themselves. Moreover, KSR will change the strategies of both patent prosecutors and litigators. Before KSR, the Supreme Court’s last major decision on nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was Graham, in which the Court established three factual inquiries for …

Restoring The Genetic Commons: A Common Sense Approach To Biotechnology Patents In The Wake Of Ksr V. Teleflex , Anna Bartow Laakmann

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In this Article, I argue that a new approach to biotechnology patenting is necessary to fully realize the tremendous potential of recent advances in our understanding of the human genome. Part I places the gene patenting debate in context by highlighting the key landmarks that have shaped the biotechnology industry and outlining the products and stakeholders that comprise the industry. Part II describes the current state of the law on biotechnology patents, summarizing the Federal Circuit's application of the various doctrines that collectively define the patent landscape's parameters. In this Part, I explain how the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence is tied …

Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, Michael W. Carroll

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In eBay v. MercExchange, the Supreme Court correctly rejected the Federal Circuit's general rule requiring that a permanent injunction follow from a finding that a patent is valid and infringed. Recognizing that one size does not fit all in patent law, the Court returned traditional equitable discretion to the district courts. With this discretion, district courts can now deploy remedies for patent infringement that are sensitive to relevant differences among industries, technologies, and entities. This Essay sets the Court's rejection of a uniform remedial regime in a larger context concerning the role of uniformity in patent law. It then explores …

Ksr V. Teleflex: Predictable Reform Of Patent Substance And Procedure In The Judiciary, John F. Duffy

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Though KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. is now widely acknowl-edged in the bar and the academy to be the most significant patent case in at least a quarter century, that view dramatically underestimates the impor-tance of the decision. The KSR decision has immense significance not merely because it rejected the standard of patentability that had been applied in the lower courts for decades, but also because it highlights many separate trends that are reshaping the patent system. This Commentary will touch upon four such trends that are clearly evi-dent in KSR. First, the case was a predictable continuation of …

The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit: Visitation And Custody Of Patent Law, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court’s relationship to patent law sometimes seems like that of a non-custodial parent who spends an occasional weekend with the kids. The custodial parent is, of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 consolidated intermediate appellate jurisdiction over patent law cases in this single court, which hears appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. In-ternational Trade Commission. Day to day it is the Federal Circuit that reviews contested decisions of the institutions …