Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Amici Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitoner, Thomas G. Field Jr., John F. Duffy, Craig Allen Nard
Brief Amici Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitoner, Thomas G. Field Jr., John F. Duffy, Craig Allen Nard
Law Faculty Scholarship
Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946 as a comprehensive statute to regulate the field of federal administrative law. In holding that the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is not subject to the standards of judicial review set forth in the APA, the [Zurko] decision isolates patent law from the rest of administrative law and undermines the APA’s goal of achieving consistency and uniformity in federal administrative law.
Amicus Brief Of Thomas G. Field, Jr., Pro Se Supporting In Principle, On Rehearing The Commissioner Of Patents And Trademarks, Thomas G. Field Jr.
Amicus Brief Of Thomas G. Field, Jr., Pro Se Supporting In Principle, On Rehearing The Commissioner Of Patents And Trademarks, Thomas G. Field Jr.
Law Faculty Scholarship
To those unfamiliar with the long, often bitter, struggle over equally compelling needs to provide, on the one hand, innovators with an adequate opportunity to recoup risk capital and to avoid, on the other, erecting unwarranted barriers to competition, a dispute over the proper scope of review for Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) patent appeals will seem both trivial and arcane. This case involves more than semantics -- its resolution turns on the allocation of power among three, and arguably four, branches of government. This Court, itself, has a stake.
Beyond The Usual Suspects: The Use Of Citizens Advisory Boards In Environmental Decisionmaking, John S. Applegate
Beyond The Usual Suspects: The Use Of Citizens Advisory Boards In Environmental Decisionmaking, John S. Applegate
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Advisory Opinions By Federal Courts, Phillip M. Kannan
Advisory Opinions By Federal Courts, Phillip M. Kannan
University of Richmond Law Review
Since 1793, the affirmative grant of authority to federal courts in Article III of the Constitution to hear and decide cases or controversies has been interpreted to prohibit these courts from giving advisory opinions. In that year, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Jay, Justice Cushing, and District Judge Duane rejected a provision in a 1792 act of Congress that would have required the Supreme Court to settle federal pension claims of widows and orphans subject to the approval of the Secretary of War. The basis for the position taken by the Chief Justice was "that neither the legislative nor …