Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bivens (1)
- CAFC (1)
- Certainty (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- District court (1)
- Empirical (1)
- En banc (1)
- Federal Circuit (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Forum shopping (1)
- Handbook (1)
- IP (1)
- Institution (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
- Patent (1)
- Percolation (1)
- Predictability (1)
- Qualified immunity (1)
- Quality (1)
- Research (1)
- Section 1983 (1)
- Solicitor general (1)
- USPTO (1)
- Uniformity (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca
The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca
Law Faculty Scholarship
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a unique institution. Unlike other circuit courts, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is bound by subject area rather than geography, and it was created to address a unique set of problems specific to patent law. These characteristics have affected its institutional development and made the court one of the most frequently studied appellate courts. This chapter examines this development and describes the evolving qualities that have helped the Federal Circuit distinguish itself, for better or worse, as an institution.
This chapter begins with an overview of the concerns existing before creation of …
Iqbal, Al-Kidd And Pleading Past Qualified Immunity: What The Cases Mean And How They Demonstrate A Need To Eliminate The Immunity Doctrines From Constitutional Tort Law, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd contain issue-framing statements indicating that a constitutional tort plaintiff is required to plead facts sufficient to establish the inapplicability of the qualified immunity defense. Yet, framing the issue in this way ignores the Court’s earlier decisions in Gomez v. Toledo and Crawford-El v. Britton and is at odds with the established law of pleading; a plaintiff is not required to anticipate an affirmative defense and negate its applicability in the complaint. These cases thus raise a number of questions—Does the Court really mean what its issue-framing statements suggest? …