Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Prospects For Adr In Patent Disputes: An Empirical Assessment Of Attorneys' Attitudes, Thomas G. Field Jr., Michael Rose Jan 1992

Prospects For Adr In Patent Disputes: An Empirical Assessment Of Attorneys' Attitudes, Thomas G. Field Jr., Michael Rose

Law Faculty Scholarship

For the most part, parties with a legal dispute have either settled their differences or, when that wasn't possible, litigated them. However, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is increasingly urged as a supplement or substitute in a wide range of areas. ADR usually involves at least one third party who is employed by neither the judicial system nor one of the parties to the dispute. The third party may be a mediator, who helps the parties reach settlement, or an arbitrator, who renders a decision. While arbitration has been widely used for many years, until very recently, mediation (or conciliation ...


Comment: Perceptions Of Chief Patent Counsel At Large Corporations Of The Effects Of Patent Term, Products Liability And Government Regulations On Firm R&D, Thomas G. Field Jr. Jan 1992

Comment: Perceptions Of Chief Patent Counsel At Large Corporations Of The Effects Of Patent Term, Products Liability And Government Regulations On Firm R&D, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Last summer, over 300 members of the Association of (chief) Corporate Patent Counsel were surveyed concerning their attitude toward and experience with arbitration and mediation (ADR). Seventy-five responded. Subsequently, tabulations of the survey data were sent to the same people with four additional questions, two of which had nothing to do with ADR. Forty-one responded. This comment reports responses to the two questions unrelated to ADR.


The Effect Of New Rule 56 On The Law Of Inequitable Conduct, R. Carl Moy Jan 1992

The Effect Of New Rule 56 On The Law Of Inequitable Conduct, R. Carl Moy

Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses Rule 56 of the Patent and Trademark Office. Part II discusses changes from the old to the new Rule 56, and examines the former’s relationship to the law of inequitable conduct. Part III elaborates on the current status of the PTO’s rulemaking efforts, and Part IV is focused on the new Rule under the APA. Parts V and VI are about new Rule 56 as a hortatory statement and common-law jurisprudential limitations, respectively. The author ultimately concludes that the PTO could have chosen to approach the Federal Circuit as an amicus without a prior rulemaking ...