Panel discussion: Specialized courts: Lessons from the federal circuit

Journal of Intellectual Property

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 317-342

  Kieff, F Scott ^a,b   Martens, Don ^c   Rai, Arti K ^d   Rader, Randall R ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Knobbe Martens Olson and Bear LLP   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Federal Circuit ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 66149102027     PISSN: 15599493     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. S. Rep. No. 97-275, at 6 (1981), as reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 11, 16.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2006).
3. H.R. 34, 110th Cong. (2007).
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898-900 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
7. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
8. 5 U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq. (2006).
9. Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-45 (1984).
10. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
11. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
12. 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006).
13. E.g., KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (obviousness)
14. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).(subject matter)
15. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (injunctions)
16. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) (enhanced damages)
17. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (licensees' ability to bring suit while holding patentees to contract terms)
18. Quanta Computer v. LG Elecs., 128 S.Ct. 2109 (2008) (license to one may now be a license to all).
19. F. Scott Kieff, The Case for Registering Patents and the Law and Economics of Present Patent-Obtaining Rules, 5 B.C. L. REV. 55 (2003)
20. Comments Regarding Competition and Intellectual Property - Summary of Proposed Testimony, www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycomments/ harvardlaw.pdf (this submission was the basis for an invitation to present further oral testimony)
21. Official Transcript Proceedings: Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy In the Knowledge-Based Economy (Apr. 10, 2002), www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020410trans.pdf (transcript of invited testimony before the Federal Trade Commission).
22. 35 U.S.C. § 282 (2006).
23. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (2006).
24. S. Leslie Misrock & F. Scott Kieff, Latent Cures For Patent Pathology: Do Our Civil Juries Promote Science and the Useful Arts?, in THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE AND THE LAW, AT SCIENCE IN CRISIS AT THE MILLENNIUM (AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM) (Geo. Wash. U. Ctr. for Hist. of Recent Sci., Sept. 19, 1996), reprinted in CHISUM ET AL., PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW 1024 (2nd ed. 2001).
25. See id.
26. COMMISSION ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS, FINAL REPORT (Dec. 18, 1998) (the Commission was created by the 105th Congress and chaired by then-retired Supreme Court Justice Byron White).
27. Id.
28. Illinois Tool Works v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006).
29. Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980).
30. 35 U.S.C. § 271(d) (2006).
31. FED.R.
32. Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780 (1997).
33. Id. at 782.
34. Id. at 785.
35. See In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc).
36. 35 U.S.C. § 285 (2006).