Law Commons^™

Inventing Norms, William Hubbard

All Faculty Scholarship

Patent law strives to promote the progress of technology by encouraging invention. Traditionally, scholars contend that patent law achieves this goal by creating financial incentives to invent in the form of exclusive rights to new technology. This traditional view of invention, however, fails to recognize that inventors are motivated by more than money. Like most people, inventors are also motivated by social norms, that is, shared normative beliefs favoring certain actions while disfavoring others. This Article argues that many Americans embrace social norms that favor and encourage successful invention. Because of these "inventing norms" inventors enjoy enhanced personal satisfaction and …

E-Discovery's Threat To Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 For The Digital Age, Robert M. Hardaway, Dustin D. Berger, Andrea Defield

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even though they were amended in 2006 specifically to address the costs and scale of ediscovery, not only fail to contain the cost or scope of discovery, but, in fact, encourage expensive litigation ancillary to the merits of civil litigants' cases. This Article proposes that the solution to this dilemma is to eliminate the presumption that the producing party should pay for the cost of discovery. This rule should be abandoned in favor of a rule that would equally distribute the costs of discovery between the requesting and producing parties.

Making Sense Of Twombly, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In May 2007, the United States Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and sent shockwaves throughout the federal civil justice system. Reversing the Second Circuit, the Court held that an antitrust complaint that alleged mere parallel behavior among rival telecommunications companies, coupled with stray averments of agreement that amounted merely to legal conclusions, failed as a matter of law to state a claim for conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and had been properly dismissed by the trial court. The Court then proceeded to (1) redefine the concept of notice pleading by "retiring" …

Jurisdictional Discovery In Transnational Litigation: Extraterritorial Effects Of United States Federal Practice, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

This article describes the device in detail, distinguishing it both practically and theoretically from methods used in other common law systems to establish jurisdiction, and discusses how recent US Supreme Court precedent provides international actors with the means of limiting or avoiding this potentially burdensome procedure.

The Anticipation Misconception, Colin P. Marks

Faculty Articles

Many commentators and courts have cited to the Supreme Court decision of Hickman v. Taylor as the genesis of the work product doctrine and the requirement that, to be afforded protection, the material in question must be generated “in anticipation of litigation.” The oft quoted policy justification for the protection afforded is that attorneys should be allowed a “zone of privacy” within which to prepare their case for the client. This justification supports limiting protection only to work generated “in anticipation of litigation,” because, presumably, outside of this context there is no need for the “zone of privacy.” However, a …

Atypical Inventions, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Patent law is constantly evolving to accommodate advances in science and technology. But, for a variety of reasons, some aspects of patent doctrine have not evolved over time leading to a growing disconnect between the patent system and certain technical communities. Particularly vulnerable to the ill effects of this disconnect are "atypical" inventions, which this Article definesas those in which either (1) a technical aspect of the invention or the inventive process does not conform to an established legal standard in patent law or (2) the technical underpinnings of the invention depart from well-established scientific paradigms. An example of the …

False Security: How Courts Have Improperly Rendered The Protections Of The Protective Order Illusory, Ramona L. Lampley

Faculty Articles

The protective order is perhaps one of the most useful and “taken for granted” discovery devices contemplated by the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of a joint protective order in civil litigation is to permit the parties to produce business information without fear that the information will be disseminated publicly, and with a court order that the information be used only for purposes of the present litigation. Blanket protective orders serve the interests of a just, speedy, and less expensive determination of complex disputes by alleviating the need for and delay occasioned by extensive and repeated …