Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (190)
- University of Michigan Law School (65)
- UIC School of Law (31)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (24)
- American University Washington College of Law (17)
-
- University of Richmond (12)
- Boston University School of Law (11)
- Notre Dame Law School (11)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (11)
- BLR (10)
- Duke Law (9)
- University of Georgia School of Law (9)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (7)
- Brooklyn Law School (6)
- Cleveland State University (6)
- Pepperdine University (5)
- SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah (5)
- Georgetown University Law Center (4)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (4)
- University of Missouri School of Law (4)
- Emory University School of Law (3)
- Georgia State University College of Law (3)
- Marquette University Law School (3)
- New York Law School (3)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (3)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (3)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (3)
- University of Washington School of Law (3)
- Columbia Law School (2)
- National Law School of India University (2)
- Keyword
-
- Patent law (54)
- Federal Circuit (46)
- Courts (30)
- Patent (23)
- Copyright (22)
-
- United States Supreme Court (22)
- Intellectual Property Law (19)
- Patents (19)
- Intellectual property (16)
- Supreme Court (16)
- Copyright infringement (15)
- Infringement (15)
- Copyright law (14)
- Jurisdiction (14)
- Patent infringement (14)
- Judges (13)
- Law (13)
- Technology (13)
- Law reform (12)
- Patent and Trademark Office (11)
- Patentability (11)
- Antitrust (10)
- Regulation (10)
- Lanham Act (9)
- Patent system (9)
- Trademark (9)
- Competition (8)
- Congress (8)
- Inventions (8)
- Constitution (7)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (189)
- Faculty Scholarship (22)
- Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review (21)
- Michigan Law Review (19)
- Articles (18)
-
- UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law (17)
- Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (12)
- UIC Law Review (12)
- American University Law Review (11)
- Touro Law Review (11)
- ExpressO (10)
- Michigan Law Review First Impressions (10)
- University of Richmond Law Review (9)
- Court Briefs (8)
- Cardozo Law Review (7)
- Faculty Publications (6)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (5)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (5)
- Utah Law Faculty Scholarship (5)
- Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press (4)
- Faculty Articles (4)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (4)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (4)
- Georgia State University Law Review (3)
- Journal of Business & Technology Law (3)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (3)
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
- Scholarly Works (3)
- Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law (2)
- Brooklyn Law Review (2)
- Publication Type
Articles 391 - 420 of 505
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
The Claim Construction Effect, Lee Petherbridge
The Claim Construction Effect, Lee Petherbridge
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Claim construction refers to the task of construing, or interpreting, the words of patents' claims to establish the metes and bounds of a patent. Theoretically, the task of claim construction serves to operationalize the concept of "invention," which lies at the heart of the U.S. patent system.[...] Rather than focusing on the set of cases in which the Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, this study focuses on a set of cases defined by a different patent doctrine. The basic idea is to explore the impact of claim construction on other areas of patent law.[...] The hypothesis of the claim construction …
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel's Address To The Federal Circuit Judicial Conference On The State Of The Court, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 647 (2008), Paul R. Michel
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
On May 15, 2008, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul R. Michel delivered the annual State of the Court speech. Chief Judge Michel delivered this speech during the Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, held at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Washington. The text of that speech and the corresponding graphics appear here.
Must The Jury Reach A Verdict? The Constitutionality Of Eliminating Juries In Patent Trials By Creating An Article I Tribunal, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 754 (2008), Daniel P. Sullivan
Must The Jury Reach A Verdict? The Constitutionality Of Eliminating Juries In Patent Trials By Creating An Article I Tribunal, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 754 (2008), Daniel P. Sullivan
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The February 2007 jury verdict against Microsoft totaling $1.52 billion marked the largest in a patent case ever, following the prevailing trend of juries awarding extraordinarily high damages. Because patent law deals with complex technology and complicated issues of fact and law, and because empirical evidence concludes that juries have significant biases in favor of patentees and against alleged infringers, this comment calls into question whether or not twelve lay persons are sufficiently equipped to handle patent trials. In lieu of juries rendering verdicts in patent trials – and even in lieu of U.S. District Court judges adjudicating patent trials …
Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Pharma's Nonobvious Problem, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Articles
This Article considers the effect of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. on the nonobviousness standard for patentability as applied to pharmaceutical patents. By calling for an expansive and flexible analysis and disapproving of the use of rigid formulas in evaluating an invention for obviousness, KSR may appear to make it easier for generic competitors to challenge the validity of drug patents. But an examination of the Federal Circuit's nonobviousness jurisprudence in the context of such challenges reveals that the Federal Circuit has been employing all along the sort of flexible …
The Never Ending Seizure Order: How Courts Have Granted Immortality To Congress's Mayfly, Steven N. Baker
The Never Ending Seizure Order: How Courts Have Granted Immortality To Congress's Mayfly, Steven N. Baker
Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Trolling For Trolls: The Pitfalls Of The Emerging Market Competition Requirement For Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases Post-Ebay, Benjamin H. Diessel
Trolling For Trolls: The Pitfalls Of The Emerging Market Competition Requirement For Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases Post-Ebay, Benjamin H. Diessel
Michigan Law Review
In eBay v. MercExchange, a unanimous Supreme Court announced that a new four-factor test should be employed by district courts in determining whether to award an injunction or damages to an aggrieved party whose intellectual property has been infringed. In the context of permanent injunctions in patent cases, district courts have distorted the four-factor test resulting in a "market competition requirement." Under the new market competition requirement, success at obtaining an injunction is contingent upon a party demonstrating that it is a market competitor After consistent application in the first twenty-five district court cases post-eBay, the market competition requirement …
Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic
Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic
Michigan Law Review
Specific exclusion has become a controversial limitation on the doctrine of equivalents, which is itself an essential and controversial area of patent law. The doctrine of equivalents allows a patentee to successfully claim infringement against devices that are outside of the literal reach of the language used by the patentee in her patent to describe what she claims as her invention. The Supreme Court has prescribed some of the outer limits of the doctrine of equivalents and articulated the underlying policy concerns that inform its analysis-noting that courts should balance protection of the patentee's intellectual property with the public's reasonable …
Claim Construction, Appeal, And The Predictability Of Interpretive Regimes, Jeffrey A. Lefstin
Claim Construction, Appeal, And The Predictability Of Interpretive Regimes, Jeffrey A. Lefstin
ExpressO
Interpretation is central to patent law, because most adjudications require association of written claims with non-linguistic subject matter. By some accounts, the lack of predictability in the law of claim interpretation has reached crisis proportions, and has prompted calls for far-reaching changes in the way patent issues are adjudicated. However, the actual evidence that questions of interpretation are more problematic than other aspects of patent law is sparser than is commonly recognized. Moreover, while the controversy over claim interpretation centers around the predictability of interpretation between trial and appeal, what is important is to be able to predict outcomes before …
Survey Of The Federal Circuit's Patent Law Decisions In 2006: A New Chapter In The Ongoing Dialogue With The Supreme Court, Gregory A. Castanias, Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Michael S. Fried, Todd R. Geremia
Survey Of The Federal Circuit's Patent Law Decisions In 2006: A New Chapter In The Ongoing Dialogue With The Supreme Court, Gregory A. Castanias, Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Michael S. Fried, Todd R. Geremia
American University Law Review
In 2006, the Federal Circuit decided only one portion of one patent case en banc, and that was done mainly as a procedural matter (the entire case was not argued to an en banc court) in order to reconcile prior conflicting precedent on the issue of induced patent infringement with the recent Supreme Court decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., involving induced copyright infringement. But in light of the Supreme Court’s much more muscular review of the Federal Circuit’s patent cases—which may not even reflect the full extent of the Court’s interest in the Federal Circuit’s patent decisions—the …
Ksr V. Teleflex: Predictable Reform Of Patent Substance And Procedure In The Judiciary, John F. Duffy
Ksr V. Teleflex: Predictable Reform Of Patent Substance And Procedure In The Judiciary, John F. Duffy
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Though KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. is now widely acknowl-edged in the bar and the academy to be the most significant patent case in at least a quarter century, that view dramatically underestimates the impor-tance of the decision. The KSR decision has immense significance not merely because it rejected the standard of patentability that had been applied in the lower courts for decades, but also because it highlights many separate trends that are reshaping the patent system. This Commentary will touch upon four such trends that are clearly evi-dent in KSR. First, the case was a predictable continuation of …
Ksr's Effect On Patent Law, Stephen G. Kunin, Andrew K. Beverina
Ksr's Effect On Patent Law, Stephen G. Kunin, Andrew K. Beverina
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. clarified its 1966 decision in Graham v. John Deere, avoiding the sea change to a synergy- based standard that many had expected—and perhaps feared. KSR has raised the bar set in Graham for seeking patent protection—by providing a flexible test for obviousness—while simultaneously making it easier for accused infringers to defend themselves. Moreover, KSR will change the strategies of both patent prosecutors and litigators. Before KSR, the Supreme Court’s last major decision on nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was Graham, in which the Court established three factual inquiries for …
Now That The Courts Have Beaten Congress To The Punch, Why Is Congress Still Punching The Patent System?, Robert A. Armitage
Now That The Courts Have Beaten Congress To The Punch, Why Is Congress Still Punching The Patent System?, Robert A. Armitage
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The U.S. House of Representatives began September by passing the Patent Reform Act of 2007. This bill, if enacted, would make major changes to U.S. patent law. Given the universally recognized need for improvements to the U.S. patent system, passing a patent reform bill in the House should have been easy. It was not. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 made it through the House only after a spirited debate. There were a host of complaints by House members that the bill was not ready for floor action. In the end, it passed the House by a relatively narrow margin, …
Making Sense Of Ksr And Other Recent Patent Cases, Harold C. Wegner
Making Sense Of Ksr And Other Recent Patent Cases, Harold C. Wegner
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The recent Supreme Court review of KSR International Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, and Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. manifests the Court’s current interest in the patent jurisprudence of the Fed-eral Circuit. Now it is evident that the Court has a level of concern sufficient to guarantee the possibility of grant of certiorari—whereas formerly a case could rarely generate sufficient interest for review. For long-range impor-tance in patent law, KSR stands alone as the single most important Supreme Court patent decision on the bread and butter standard of “obviousness” in the more than forty years since …
Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, Michael W. Carroll
Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, Michael W. Carroll
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
In eBay v. MercExchange, the Supreme Court correctly rejected the Federal Circuit's general rule requiring that a permanent injunction follow from a finding that a patent is valid and infringed. Recognizing that one size does not fit all in patent law, the Court returned traditional equitable discretion to the district courts. With this discretion, district courts can now deploy remedies for patent infringement that are sensitive to relevant differences among industries, technologies, and entities. This Essay sets the Court's rejection of a uniform remedial regime in a larger context concerning the role of uniformity in patent law. It then explores …
What Is Hiding In The Bushes - Ebay's Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, Gavin D. George
What Is Hiding In The Bushes - Ebay's Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, Gavin D. George
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Importantly, at least a few relevant patent holders are inevitably left out of an industry organization's collection of patents. These left-out patent holders, known as "holdouts," can undermine the collective arrangement with demand letters and infringement suits.[...] The first part of this Note explains why holdouts exist in the first place, given the benefits of joining an organization of collected patents. In the second part of this Note, I explore the lack of legal protections against holdout demands offered by pre-eBay patent law. The third part of this Note introduces the eBay decision as revolutionary addition to list of legal …
Restoring The Genetic Commons: A Common Sense Approach To Biotechnology Patents In The Wake Of Ksr V. Teleflex , Anna Bartow Laakmann
Restoring The Genetic Commons: A Common Sense Approach To Biotechnology Patents In The Wake Of Ksr V. Teleflex , Anna Bartow Laakmann
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
In this Article, I argue that a new approach to biotechnology patenting is necessary to fully realize the tremendous potential of recent advances in our understanding of the human genome. Part I places the gene patenting debate in context by highlighting the key landmarks that have shaped the biotechnology industry and outlining the products and stakeholders that comprise the industry. Part II describes the current state of the law on biotechnology patents, summarizing the Federal Circuit's application of the various doctrines that collectively define the patent landscape's parameters. In this Part, I explain how the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence is tied …
The Trademark Jurisprudence Of Judge Rich, Jeffrey M. Samuels, Linda B. Samuels
The Trademark Jurisprudence Of Judge Rich, Jeffrey M. Samuels, Linda B. Samuels
American University Law Review
For nearly forty-three years, Giles Sutherland Rich served as a member of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (C.C.P.A.) and its successor court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Rich is widely regarded as one of the most influential jurists in the area of patent law—and rightfully so. Less well known is that Judge Rich also authored many significant decisions in the area of trademark law. Judge Rich’s opinions in the area of trademarks span the spectrum of trademark registrability issues and explore important issues of public policy. This Article reviews a number of …
Is Lilly Written Description Paper Tiger?: Comprehensive Assessment Of The Impact Of Eli Lilly And Its Progeny In The Courts And Pto, Christopher M. Holman
Is Lilly Written Description Paper Tiger?: Comprehensive Assessment Of The Impact Of Eli Lilly And Its Progeny In The Courts And Pto, Christopher M. Holman
Faculty Works
In University of California v. Eli Lilly, decided by the Federal Circuit in 1997, the court established for the first time a new form of patent law's written description requirement, apparently targeted specifically at biotechnology. To this day, the conventional wisdom is that the so-called Lilly written description requirement (LWD) exists as a biotechnology-specific super-enablement requirement, substantially more stringent than the enablement requirement (the conventional standard for patentability), and standing as an impediment to effective patent protection for biotechnology inventions. My objective in writing this article was to test this conventional wisdom, by conducting a comprehensive search for all LWD …
The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit: Visitation And Custody Of Patent Law, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit: Visitation And Custody Of Patent Law, Rebecca S. Eisenberg
Articles
The U.S. Supreme Court’s relationship to patent law sometimes seems like that of a non-custodial parent who spends an occasional weekend with the kids. The custodial parent is, of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 consolidated intermediate appellate jurisdiction over patent law cases in this single court, which hears appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. In-ternational Trade Commission. Day to day it is the Federal Circuit that reviews contested decisions of the institutions …
A Marriage Of Convenience? A Comment On The Protection Of Databases, Jane C. Ginsburg
A Marriage Of Convenience? A Comment On The Protection Of Databases, Jane C. Ginsburg
Faculty Scholarship
Daniel Gervais concluded his analysis of the protection of databases with three options for the future. I would like to examine a fourth. Let us assume no future flurry of national or supranational legislative activity because the content of databases is in fact already being protected. Not through copyright or sui generis rights, but through other means. Databases are an object of economic value, and they will conveniently wed whatever legal theory or theories will achieve the practical objective of preventing unauthorized exploitation of the works' contents. To beat the marriage metaphor into the ground, I'd like to suggest that, …
The Measure Of The Doubt: Dissent, Indeterminacy, And Interpretation At The Federal Circuit, Jeffrey A. Lefstin
The Measure Of The Doubt: Dissent, Indeterminacy, And Interpretation At The Federal Circuit, Jeffrey A. Lefstin
ExpressO
The law of patent claim interpretation articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is commonly supposed to be markedly indeterminate, and to be responsible for a lack of certainty and predictability in patent infringement litigation. But there has been no attempt to measure objectively the indeterminacy associated with patent claim interpretation, or, for that matter, of any other field of law. This Article shows that under appropriate conditions the indeterminacy of a legal regime may be measured empirically by the frequency of judicial dissents. Application of this method to the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence demonstrates that …
A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp
A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp
ExpressO
The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.
Ebay V. Mercexchange As A Sign Of Things To Come: Is The Supreme Court Still Reluctant To Hear Patent Cases?, Peter O. Huang
Ebay V. Mercexchange As A Sign Of Things To Come: Is The Supreme Court Still Reluctant To Hear Patent Cases?, Peter O. Huang
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Data Privacy, Data Piracy: Can India Provide Adequate Protection For Electronically Transferred Data?, Vinita Bali
Data Privacy, Data Piracy: Can India Provide Adequate Protection For Electronically Transferred Data?, Vinita Bali
ExpressO
As the wave of outsourcing to India swells, there is growing concern about the inadequacies of the India legal system in protecting data being transferred to it from other nations for the purpose of processing. India has a smattering of laws that scantily address the issue of data privacy. Under pressure from the business processing industry in India, as well as from the European Union and other nations, it is but a matter of time before India adopts a slate of laws that address the issue of data protection. Once these laws are enacted, the main issue that remains is …
Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp
Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp
ExpressO
This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.
Pathological Patenting: The Pto As Cause Or Cure, Rochelle Dreyfuss
Pathological Patenting: The Pto As Cause Or Cure, Rochelle Dreyfuss
Michigan Law Review
The Patent Act was last revised in 1952. The hydrogen bomb was exploded that year, vividly demonstrating the power of the nucleus; in the ensuing postwar period, the Next Big Thing was clearly the molecule. Novel compounds were synthesized in the hopes of finding new medicines; solid-state devices exploited the special characteristics of germanium and other semiconductors; as investments in polymer chemistry soared, advice to the college graduate soon boiled down to "one word ... just one word[:] ... Plastics." Over the next half-century, things changed dramatically. "Better living through chemistry" has begun to sound dated (if not sinister). Genomics …
The Supreme Court, Stare Decisis, And The Role Of Judicial Deference In Patent Claim Construction Appeals, David Krinsky
The Supreme Court, Stare Decisis, And The Role Of Judicial Deference In Patent Claim Construction Appeals, David Krinsky
ExpressO
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviews de novo the rulings of district judges about patent claim construction. This state of affairs—surprising to many lawyers who are unfamiliar with patent law—is controversial because claim construction is one of the most important and vexing aspects of patent litigation, necessary to the vast majority of patent cases, and because it is probably responsible, at least in part, for the high reversal rate in patent cases. Commentary by both scholars and judges about the standard of review in patent cases has centered on whether the Federal Circuit should change it …
The Dilution Solution: Populating The Trademark A-List, Scott C. Wilcox
The Dilution Solution: Populating The Trademark A-List, Scott C. Wilcox
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In our celebrity-conscious culture, the media serve as arbiters of fame. The editors of Us Weekly and People wield significant influence over public recognition of celebrities. Since the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) amended the Lanham Act in 1995, federal courts have adopted similar roles as arbiters of fame, determining which trademarks are sufficiently famous to receive federal protection against dilution. Recent changes to the Lanham Act, however, reserve the availability of dilution actions to “A-list” marks. These changes fulfill the objectives of trademark law while achieving Congress’s intent in enacting the FTDA.
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006: A Welcome—And Needed—Change, Dale M. Cendali, Bonnie L. Schriefer
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006: A Welcome—And Needed—Change, Dale M. Cendali, Bonnie L. Schriefer
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Some have argued that the changes to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (the “FTDA”) embodied in the recently enacted Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (the “TDRA”) threaten to infringe upon the right to free speech. This is simply not the case. The FTDA has always protected First Amendment rights, and the TDRA clarifies and strengthens those protections. While the concept of dilution was introduced in 1927, there was no federal dilution law in the United States until 1995, when Congress passed the FTDA. Since then, various federal courts have reached different conclusions regarding issues such as: (1) what constituted …
What Is Dilution, Anyway?, Stacey L. Dogan
What Is Dilution, Anyway?, Stacey L. Dogan
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Ever since the Supreme Court decided Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. in 2003, an amendment to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) has appeared inevitable. Congress almost certainly meant to adopt a “likelihood of dilution” standard in the original statute, and the 2006 revisions correct its sloppy drafting. Substituting a “likelihood of dilution” standard for “actual dilution,” however, does not resolve a deeper philosophical question that has always lurked in the dilution debate: what is dilution, and how does one prove or disprove its probability? The statutory definition notwithstanding, this issue remains largely unanswered, leaving the courts with the …