Law Commons^™

Piracy And Due Process, Andrew Kent

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article explores in depth the law of nations, English domestic law, and English government practice from the late medieval period through the eighteenth century, and the U.S. constitutional law and government practice during the Founding and antebellum periods. I conclude that Chapman’s claims about due process and piracy suppression are incorrect. Both Parliament and the U.S. Congress; both the Crown and its counselors and U.S Presidents and their advisers; both the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy; and commentators both English and American believed that (1) pirates on the high seas could lawfully be subject to extrajudicial killing, but …

Solving The Nonresident Alien Due Process Paradox In Personal Jurisdiction, Robin J. Effron

Michigan Law Review Online

Personal jurisdiction has a nonresident alien problem. Or, more accurately, personal jurisdiction has two nonresident alien problems. The first is the extent to which the specter of the nonresident alien defendant has overshadowed-if not unfairly driven-the discourse and doctrine over constitutional personal jurisdiction. The second is that the constitutional right to resist personal jurisdiction enjoyed by the nonresident alien defendant in a civil lawsuit is remarkably out of alignment with that same nonresident alien's ability to assert nearly every other constitutional right. Neither of these observations is new, although the first problem has drawn far more scholarly attention than the …

'Deriving' An Understanding Of The Extraterritorial Applicability Of The Commodity Exchange Act, Gabrielle Schwartz

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that courts should return to using a holistic approach, similar to the traditional “conducts” and “effects” test previously used by courts to analyze extraterritorial securities and commodities claims, to assess claims brought under the CEA. Furthermore, this Note argues that both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and private individuals including foreign plaintiffs, should be permitted to bring these claims to uphold Congress’s intent in establishing a regulatory regime and maintaining the integrity of the international derivatives market. Part I discusses the history of derivative regulation and how both court decisions and statutory changes have created the …

Extraterritoriality And The Alien Tort Statute— Narrow Application Preserves Crucial Boundaries, Alicia Pitts

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Intellectual Property Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Westerngeco Llc V. Ion Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011, Us Supreme Court, Timothy R. Holbrook, Ann Bartow, Dan L. Burk, Donald P. Harris, David C. Hricik, Amy L. Landers, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Lee Ann W. Lockridge, Jason Rantanen

All Faculty Scholarship

This amici curiae brief was filed on behalf of Intellectual Property Law Scholars in WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. in the U.S. Supreme Court. The question presented is:

"Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)."

In RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016), the Supreme Court articulated a two-step method for assessing the extraterritorial reach of a US statute:

1. …

Brief Amici Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitioner, No. 18-600, Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. V. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Timothy R. Holbrook, Ann Bartow, Andrew Chin, David C. Hricik, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Lucas Osborn

All Faculty Scholarship

To comply with the obligations of the Uruguay Round Agreements, particularly the Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), Congress amended 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) to make it an act of infringement to “offer to sell” a patented invention within the United States. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 103-465, §§ 531-533, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994).

The Federal Circuit has interpreted this provision in a manner contrary to the presumption against the extraterritorial reach of United States laws. The Federal Circuit has held that location of the ultimate sale contemplated in the offer controls the …