Expanding standing in patent declaratory judgment actions to better air public policy considerations

New York University Law Review

Volumn 88, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 476-514

  Walrath, Nicholas D ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883187760     PISSN: 00287881     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (206)

1. One principal exception is litigation brought by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), which do not utilize their patents directly by manufacturing goods or providing services, but rather exploit their patents through litigation and licensing. NPEs, however, have incentives similar to most practicing entities in terms of their desire for strong patent protection because they assert their patents against other companies but are seldom sued for infringement.
2. Moreover, as Professor Shobita Parthasarathy notes, "[T]he same players-patent lawyers and representatives of major universities and companies-appear over and over again as witnesses at Congressional hearings and as authors of amicus briefs to the courts. These insiders generally agree on the importance of robust and expansive patent rights. " Shobita Parthasarathy, Whose Knowledge? What Values? The Comparative Politics of Patenting Life Forms in the United States and Europe, 44 Pol'y Sci. 267, 269 (2011).
3. A major exception in this respect is "Hatch-Waxman" litigation in which a generic pharmaceutical company brings a declaratory judgment action against a branded pharmaceutical company, challenging the validity of a patent covering a branded product. In such litigation, the generic company clearly has an incentive to raise arguments that would weaken pharmaceutical patents as a whole because generic companies generally do not rely on the enforcement of their own pharmaceutical patents. See, e.g., Michael A. Carrier, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law 345-82 (2009).
4. See Einer R. Elhauge, Does Interest Group Theory Justify More Intrusive Judicial Review?, 101 Yale L.J. 31, 77 (1991) (describing disadvantages of the litigation process and concluding that "[e]ach party may argue only for the policy or rule that is best for it.
5. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
6. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
7. As Professors Dan Burk and Mark Lemley note: At least three major economic studies in the last five years have suggested that the patent system may actually do more harm than good to innovation, because the assertion and litigation of too many bad patents against companies that make innovative products ends up raising their costs and reducing their innovation more than the existence of those patents spurs new innovation. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It 30 (2009).
8. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-164, 96 Stat. 25 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.).
9. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
10. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
11. See Robert Patrick Merges & John Fitzgerald Duffy, Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials 11 (3d ed. 2002) (explaining that, since the creation of the Federal Circuit, "money damages have soared both on average and in the highestvisibility cases").
12. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
13. 548 U.S. 124, 126 (2006) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8).
14. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
15. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
16. Ronald J. Gilson, Charles F. Sabel, & Robert E. Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation, in Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform 223, 228 (2011) [hereinafter Gilson, Sabel & Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation].
17. Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the scope of patentable subject matter, or what type of "stuff" qualifies for patent protection in the first instance, before considering the statutory requirements of novelty, nonobviousness, and utility. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006).
18. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
19. Although I discuss the need to further incorporate public policy concerns in patent jurisprudence in Part I, the exact extent to which these concerns should play a role in patent jurisprudence is a far more difficult question, which I do not seek to answer. Rather, I contend that a mechanism must be created through which these concerns may be addressed. Once a mechanism is in place, courts may adjust the exact role that such concerns play.
20. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
21. As I use the phrase, "potential infringer" refers to patent declaratory judgment plaintiffs-individuals who bring patent declaratory judgment actions against patent holders seeking a judicial finding of noninfringement or patent invalidity.
22. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (to be codified in scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.).
23. 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (2006).
24. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
25. Indeed, Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss notes that "[t]he Federal Circuit has, rightly, become a template for nations around the globe" and "the successes of the Federal Circuit have attracted considerable new interest in specialization. " Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Continuing Experiment in Specialization, 54 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 769, 771 (2004).
26. Robert P. Merges, Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 805, 806 (1988).
27. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit as an Institution: What Ought We to Expect?, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 827, 829 (2010).
28. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
29. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
30. See, e.g., Adam B. Jaffe & Josh Lerner, Innovation and Its Discontents 104 (2004) (explaining that over the decade since the Federal Circuit's creation, "in case after case, the court significantly broadened patent holders' rights").
31. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). The requirements of novelty, nonobviousness, and utility stem from 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, respectively.
32. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
33. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
34. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
35. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
36. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
37. As Professor Kara Swanson argues, this "US-led expansion in patentable subject matter has changed the configuration of world-wide agribusiness and arguably also the trajectory of medical research and health care, with negative consequences for public health and distributive justice. " Kara W. Swanson, Patents, Politics and Abortion, in Intellectual Property Law in Context: Law and Society Perspectives on IP (William T. Gallagher & Debora J. Halbert eds., forthcoming 2013) (manuscript at 33), available at http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__ engelberg_center_on_innovation_law_and_policy/documents/documents/ecm_pro_071610. pdf.
38. The concept of "upstream" versus "downstream" technologies is used widely in the literature on intellectual property law. Upstream technologies are more closely related to basic research, whereas downstream technologies are more closely related to commercially realizable products.
39. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
40. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
41. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
42. 29 F. Cas. 1120, 1121 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813) (No. 17,600) ("[I]t could never have been the intention of the legislature to punish a man who constructed such a machine merely for philosophical experiments. ").
43. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
44. 13 F. Supp. 697, 713 (D. Colo. 1935), rev'd on other grounds, 87 F.2d 35 (10th Cir. 1936).
45. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
46. 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphases added).
47. But see John P. Walsh et al., Effects of Research Tool Patents and Licensing on Biomedical Innovation, in Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy 285, 285 (Wesley M. Cohen & Stephen A. Merrill eds., 2003) ("We also find little evidence that university research has been impeded by concerns about patents on research tools. ").
48. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
49. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 205-06 (1998).
50. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
51. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
52. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
53. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
54. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
55. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
56. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
57. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
58. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
59. J. Shawn McGrath & Kathleen M. Kedrowski, Trends in Patent Damages, 2001 A.B.A. Sec. Litig. 5 Exhibit 5, available at http://docs.piausa.org/ABA/07-06-01-ABAReport-On-Patent-Damages.pdf.
60. But cf. Michael J. Mazzeo et al., Predicting the "Unpredictable": An Empirical Analysis of U.S. Patent Infringement Awards 23 (Oct. 20, 2012) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=2164787 (concluding that "the concerns regarding the unpredictability of patent damage awards are overstated and unfounded").
61. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
62. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
63. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
64. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
65. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
66. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
67. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
68. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
69. Ronald J. Gilson, Charles F. Sabel, & Robert E. Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation, in Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform 223, 228 (2011) [hereinafter Gilson, Sabel & Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation].
70. As discussed in the conclusion, the AIA will create a post-grant opposition procedure that will allow for a broader set of patent challenges at the PTO, including challenges based on patentable subject matter. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6, 125 Stat. 284, 299-313 (2011) (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319).
71. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
72. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
73. "Deadweight loss" refers to the loss in economic utility that results from the difference between marginal benefit and marginal cost for those consumers who no longer purchase a product at the hyper-competitive price.
74. 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945) (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8).
75. A "licensee" to a patent is an individual who has been granted a license to practice the patent by the patent holder (the "licensor"). The license immunizes the licensee from infringement liability and is usually granted in exchange for money.
76. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
77. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
78. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
79. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
80. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
81. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
82. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
83. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
84. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
85. Megan M. La Belle, Standing to Sue in the Myriad Genetics Case, 2 Calif. L. Rev. Circuit 68, 85 (2011), http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/Circuit/La_Belle_20_ FINAL.pdf.
86. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
87. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
88. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
89. Standing, mootness, ripeness, and the political question doctrine comprise the justiciability requirements for federal courts. Richard H. Fallon, Jr. et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 49 (6th ed. 2009).
90. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
91. Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §§ 1011, 1029 (3d ed. 2002) (explaining the history and purpose of the Federal Rules).
92. U.S. Const. art. II, § 3.
93. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
94. Standing doctrine has developed both prudential and core constitutional limits to adjudication. The prudential component of standing doctrine includes judicially selfimposed limits on the exercise of federal adjudication, including "the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. " Allen, 468 U.S. at 751. Although courts often consider such prudential standing limits, Congress may override the courts' discretion regarding these limits and "confer standing by statute when a plaintiff would have been denied standing on prudential grounds. " William A. Fletcher, The Structure of Standing, 98 Yale L.J. 221, 222-23 (1988).
95. Allen, 468 U.S. at 751.
96. 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
97. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
98. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
99. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
100. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
101. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
102. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
103. Haworth, 300 U.S. at 239-40.
104. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
105. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
106. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
107. 549 U.S. 118 (2007).
108. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
109. E.g., Shell Oil, 970 F.2d at 887 n.2.
110. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
111. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
112. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
113. See MedImmune, 427 F.3d at 964 ("MedImmune avoided and continues to avoid such a situation, by avoiding breach and avoiding apprehension of suit. ").
114. MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 134 ("The rule that a plaintiff must destroy a large building, bet the farm, or (as here) risk treble damages and the loss of 80 percent of its business, before seeking a declaration of its actively contested legal rights finds no support in Article III. ").
115. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
116. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
117. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
118. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
119. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
120. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
121. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
122. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
123. SanDisk, 480 F.3d at 1380-81.
124. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
125. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
126. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
127. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
128. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
129. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
130. 537 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
131. In other words, if the Federal Circuit treats a reasonable apprehension of suit as a necessary condition (as opposed to merely a sufficient one) for patent declaratory judgment standing, it contradicts MedImmune.
132. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
133. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
134. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
135. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
136. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
137. Myriad, 689 F.3d at 1319.
138. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
139. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
140. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
141. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
142. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
143. Letter from Gregory A. Castanias, Attorney for Defendants-Appellants, to Jan Horbaly, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (July 27, 2011) (on file with the New York University Law Review).
144. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
145. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
146. Ronald J. Gilson, Charles F. Sabel, & Robert E. Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation, in Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform 223, 228 (2011) [hereinafter Gilson, Sabel & Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation].
147. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
148. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
149. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
150. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
151. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
152. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
153. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
154. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
155. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
156. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
157. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
158. Lear, 395 U.S. at 670.
159. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
160. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
161. However, simply allowing courts to consider these factors in the first place might disrupt this tenuous balance because declaratory judgment defendants would have to expend considerable resources challenging standing under such a broad test. In order to correct for this, courts might implement a fee-shifting provision in which potential infringers who invoke standing based on these factors, but who are found to have a meritless claim, would be required to pay the defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees. Such a compromise would promote patent declaratory judgment suits in the public interest, while deterring suits that are likely to stifle innovation.
162. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
163. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
164. Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 24:35, at 342 (2d ed. 1983).
165. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
166. Abram Chayes, The Supreme Court 1981 Term-Foreword: Public Law Litigation and the Burger Court, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 22-23 (1982).
167. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
168. Flast, 392 U.S. at 101.
169. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
170. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
171. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
172. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
173. 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984).
174. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. Such considerations are particularly important where Congress grants individuals the right to bring suit in the public interest. In such circumstances, as Justice Scalia explained in Lujan, "[t]o permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers' compliance with the law into an 'individual right' vindicable in the courts is to permit Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive's most important constitutional duty. " Lujan, 504 U.S. at 577.
175. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
176. 35 U.S.C. §§ 101-103 (2006).
177. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
178. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
179. 35 U.S.C. § 282 (2006).
180. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
181. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
182. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
183. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
184. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 558-59.
185. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
186. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
187. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
188. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
189. 524 U.S. 11 (1998).
190. Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (1972) (codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-455 (2006).
191. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
192. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
193. 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
194. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
195. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
196. See, e.g., Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1132 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd without opinion, 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986).
197. Stephen C. Yeazell, Brown, The Civil Rights Movement, and the Silent Litigation Revolution, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 1975, 1977-85 (2004).
198. Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (to be codified in scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.).
199. § 6, 125 Stat. at 299-313 (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319). Currently, the PTO employs two types of reexamination procedures for issued patents. Ex parte proceedings allow any third party to request the reexamination of an issued patent.
200. See Changes to Implement Post-Grant Review Proceedings, 77 Fed. Reg. 7060, 7060-61 (proposed Feb. 10, 2012) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) (providing broad statutory grounds supporting post-grant review).
201. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
202. Ronald J. Gilson, Charles F. Sabel, & Robert E. Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation, in Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform 223, 228 (2011) [hereinafter Gilson, Sabel & Scott, Contract, Uncertainty, and Innovation].
203. § 6, 125 Stat. at 306.
204. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
205. Benjamin Kaplan, Prefatory Note, "The Class Action-A Symposium, " 10 B.C. Indus. & Com. L. Rev. 497, 497 (1969) (expressing the views of the Advisory Committee's Reporter).
206. This threshold showing is significantly higher than the required "substantial new question of patentability" showing for current ex parte and inter partes PTO reviews. 35 U.S.C. §§ 303(a), 312(a) (2006). This differential suggests that, while the new post-grant opposition procedures can be used in a broader class of challenges, a smaller percentage of petitions will actually result in reviews.