Law Commons^™

The Accession Insight And Patent Infringement Remedies, Peter Lee

Michigan Law Review

What is the appropriate allocation of rights and obligations when one party, without authorization, substantially improves the property of another? According to the doctrine of accession, a good faith improver may take title to such improved property, subject to compensating the original owner for the value of the source materials. While shifting title to a converter seems like a remarkable remedy, this outcome merely underscores the equitable nature of accession, which aims for fair allocation of property rights and compensation between two parties who both have plausible claims to an improved asset. This Article draws upon accession-a physical property doctrine …

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 …

Personal Jurisdiction Over Aliens In Patent Infringement Actions: A Uniform Approach Toward The Situs Of The Tort, David Wille

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines current approaches to the question of personal jurisdiction over alien patent infringers. Part I describes personal jurisdiction requirements in the context of patent infringement suits against aliens. The leading case addressing these requirements has been interpreted differently by several courts, thus resulting in conflicting outcomes. Part II explains the current controversy over the locus of the tort of patent infringement. The three different modes of reasoning currently used by courts to determine the locus of the tort would allow immunity from suit for the alien in at least two hypothetical cases. This Part concludes that in order …

Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while serving on a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporations, brought a civil action in federal district court alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The venue provision of the Jones Act requires that actions under it be brought in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania although defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal offices in Louisiana. Defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of …

Patents-Adjudication Of Validity In Infringement Cases Where Alternative Grounds For Dismissal Exist, Walter A. Urick

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner's complaint alleging validity and infringement of his patent was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that petitioner had granted to respondent an implied license or "shop right." On appeal, petitioner claimed, among other things, error in the refusal of the trial court to rule on the questions of validity and infringement of the patent. Respondent moved to strike these claims from petitioner's statement of points on appeal. Held, motion denied. Failure of the trial court to pass on the questions of validity and infringement does not preclude the petitioner from arguing these issues on appeal. Kierulff …

Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner brought a patent infringement action in the northern district of Texas, wherein the alleged infringement occurred and the named defendants resided and had a regular place of business. On motion by the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), authorizing the transfer of certain actions to a district in which the action "might have been brought," the court ordered transfer to the northern district of Illinois where litigation on the same patent was already in progress between the plaintiff and other alleged infringers. Petitioner's motion for mandamus to require the Texas district court to set aside this transfer order was …

Implied Warranties Of Non-Infringement, Louis Robertson

Michigan Law Review

When a manufacturer or dealer sells a product, is there an implied warranty that the product does not infringe adversely-owned patents? In other words, does the purchaser who is successfully sued for infringement have the right, without an indemnity clause, to be indemnified by the seller?

Many lawyers, especially patent lawyers, who are accustomed to advising the insertion of express patent warranties in sales contracts to take care of the matter, have answered this question instantly and positively in the negative, and it is quite possible that according to fundamental principles of implied warranties they are right, and yet all …

Federal Practice - Appeal And Error - Dismissal Of Counterclaim Because Of Improper Venue Appealable As Interlocutory Order Denying Injunction

Michigan Law Review

To plaintiffs' suit for patent infringement defendants counterclaimed upon an unrelated patent asking for an injunction and an accounting. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue was sustained by the district court. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs moved to dismiss on the ground that dismissal of a counterclaim was not a refusal of an injunction and therefore not appealable under Sec. 129, Judicial Code. The circuit court of appeals allowed the appeal and this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. General Electric Co. et al. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co. et al., 287 U.S. 430, 53 …

Restrictions On The Use Of Patented Articles, Edward S. Rogers

Michigan Law Review

The case of Henry v. Dick recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, has occasioned considerable unfavorable comment in the public press. It seems to be the opinion of many that the decision lays down a new principle of law, particularly adaptable to the working of a monopoly, and that the public is, under the supposed new principle, exposed to a practically unlimited exploitation by any patentee. It is believed that neither of these contentions is correct.