Patent law federalism

Wisconsin Law Review

Volumn 2014, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 11-78

  Gugliuzza, Paul R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899668440     PISSN: 0043650X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 156-57 (1989).
2. http://www.ago.ne.gov/resources/dyn/files/1069520z2e735d6e/-fn/ 071813+Bruning+Patent+Troll+Release+.pdf
3. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2013/11/12/310941.htm
4. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/minnesota-patent-trolls-are-not- welcome-here
5. http://www.stateagmonitor.com/2013/10/31/taming-the-troll-toll-ags- heighten-scrutinyof-patent-trolls
6. See, e.g., Camilla A. Hrdy, Dissenting State Patent Regimes, 3 IP THEORY 78 (2013
7. Camilla A. Hrdy, State Patents as a Solution to Underinvestment in Innovation, 62 U. KAN. L. REV. 487 (2013
8. Xuan-Thao Nguyen, Dynamic Federalism and Patent Law Reform, 85 IND. L.J. 449 (2010
9. Shubha Ghosh, Short-Circuiting Contract Law: The Federal Circuit's Contract Law Jurisprudence and IP Federalism
10. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2390214.
11. Martin H. Redish, Reassessing the Allocation of Judicial Business between State and Federal Courts: Federal Jurisdiction and "The Martian Chronicles," 78 VA. L. REV. 1769, 1811 (1992)
12. Michael E. Solimine, Rethinking Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, 52 U. PITT. L. REV. 383, 386 (1991)
13. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in Private Civil Actions, 70 HARV. L. REV. 509, 517 (1957)
14. MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE & JAMES L. WALKER, RESPECTING STATE COURTS: THE INEVITABILITY OF JUDICIAL FEDERALISM 84 (1999)
15. John F. Preis, Reassessing the Purposes of Federal Question Jurisdiction, 42 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 247 (2007
16. Gil Seinfeld, The Federal Courts as Franchise: Rethinking the Justifications for Federal Question Jurisdiction, 97 CALIF. L. REV. 95 (2009).
17. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/theswitch/wp/2013/12/05/ the-house-votes-on-patent-reform-today-heres-what-you-need-toknow.
18. see Daryl J. Levinson, Parchment and Politics: The Positive Puzzle of Constitutional Commitment, 124 HARV. L. REV. 657 (2011).
19. Shaun P. Mahaffy, Note, The Case for Tax: A Comparative Approach to Innovation Policy, 123 YALE L.J. 812, 814-15 nn.2-4 (2013)
20. Donald Shelby Chisum, The Allocation of Jurisdiction between State and Federal Courts in Patent Litigation, 46 WASH. L. REV. 633 (1971)
21. Edward H. Cooper, State Law of Patent Exploitation, 56 MINN. L. REV. 313 (1972).
22. See, e.g., Dutch D. Chung, Note, The Preclusive Effect of State Court Adjudication of Patent Issues and the Federal Courts' Choice of Preclusion Laws, 69 FORDHAM L. REV. 707, 721 (2000).
23. see Eileen M. Herlihy, Appellate Review of Patent Claim Construction: Should the Federal Circuit Be Its Own Lexicographer in Matters Related to the Seventh Amendment?, 15 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 469, 513 (2009)
24. Paul M. Janicke, To Be or Not to Be: The Long Gestation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1887-1982), 69 ANTITRUST L.J. 645, 649 (2001)
25. http://www.uscourts.gov/news/newsview/11-06-07/District-Courts-Selected- for-Patent-Pilot-Program.aspx.
26. http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/ A1080B83447CB9DDC1257B36005AAAB8/File/upc-agreement-en.pdf.
27. See, e.g., Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1998
28. Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 986 F.2d 476, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
29. See, e.g., Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp., 532 F.3d 1330, 1334 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
30. http://www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/ Vermont%20v%20MPHJ%20Technologies%20Complaint.pdf.
31. http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/PressRelease/130820StopPatentTrolling. asp.
32. http://www.ago.ne.gov/resources/dyn/files/1069534z3005a836/-fn/ 071813+Farney+Daniels+LLP+- +Cease+%26+Desist+Letter+and+Civil+Investigative+Demand.pdf.
33. http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/ JudgesJudgeships/docs/alljudgeships.pdf (last visited Mar. 6, 2014).
34. See B. Zorina Khan, Property Rights and Patent Litigation in Early Nineteenth-Century America, 55 J. ECON. HIST. 58, 63 (1995)
35. See, e.g., Paul R. Michel, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Must Evolve to Meet the Challenges Ahead, 48 AM. U. L. REV. 1177, 1191 (1999).
36. R. Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1105, 1133-34 (2004).
37. http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/ Dialogue/Reilly-Online-Final.pdf.
38. Christopher A. Cotropia, Determining Uniformity within the Federal Circuit by Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 801, 815-18 (2010).
39. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2351993.
40. See, e.g., Kimberly A. Moore, Markman Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable?, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 231, 239 (2005
41. David L. Schwartz, Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 MICH. L. REV. 223, 234 (2008).
42. See J. Jonas Anderson & Peter S. Menell, Informal Deference: An Historical, Empirical, and Normative Analysis of Patent Claim Construction, 108 NW. U. L. REV. (forthcoming 2014) (manuscript at 38-39, 43), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2150360.
43. see Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 74 (1989).
44. See Evan H. Caminker, Precedent and Prediction: The Forward-Looking Aspects of Inferior Court Decisionmaking, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1, 38 (1994).
45. Ryan Vacca, Acting Like an Administrative Agency: The Federal Circuit En Banc, 76 MO. L. REV. 733, 738-39 (2011)
46. See LEE EPSTEIN ET AL., THE SUPREME COURT COMPENDIUM: DATA, DECISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENTS 270-71 tbl.3-6 (5th ed. 2012)
47. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406-07 (2007).
48. see Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, Percolation, Uniformity, and Coherent Adjudication: The Federal Circuit Experience, 66 SMU L. REV. 505, 519-20 (2013).
49. Mark A. Lemley et al., Rush to Judgment? Trial Length and Outcomes in Patent Cases, 41 AIPLA Q.J. 169, 178 (2013).
50. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2347712
51. See Sapna Kumar, The Other Patent Agency: Congressional Regulation of the ITC, 61 FLA. L. REV. 529, 538-40 (2009).
52. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter-1.PDF
53. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/obama-administration-overturns- ban-on-appleproducts.
54. Colleen V. Chien & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 9-10 (2012).
55. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. REV. 889, 917 (2001).
56. Kimberly A. Moore, Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases-An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99 MICH. L. REV. 365, 406 (2000).
57. see Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything about the Legal System? Win Rates and Removal Jurisdiction, 83 CORNELL L. REV. 581, 587-92 (1998).
58. http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2009/08/bifurcation-ruling-highlights- divergent.html
59. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2252849.
60. http://www.localpatentrules.com/about-the-author (last updated Dec. 2013).
61. http://www.localpatentrules.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ Chart%20Claim%20Construction.pdf
62. See, e.g., John M. Golden, The Supreme Court as "Prime Percolator": A Prescription for Appellate Review of Questions in Patent Law, 56 UCLA L. REV. 657, 662-63 (2009
63. John E. Sexton, A Managerial Theory of the Supreme Court's Responsibilities: An Empirical Study, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV. 681, 699 n.68 (1984)
64. Jay P. Kesan & Gwendolyn G. Ball, Judicial Experience and the Efficiency and Accuracy of Patent Adjudication: An Empirical Analysis of the Case for a Specialized Patent Trial Court, 24 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 394, 428 (2011).
65. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expert (last visited Mar. 6, 2014)
66. See Banks Miller & Brett Curry, Expertise, Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 43 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 839, 858 (2009
67. Banks Miller & Brett Curry, Experts Judging Experts: The Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making, 38 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY 55, 59-60 (2013).
68. see also David L. Schwartz, Courting Specialization: An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Comparing Patent Litigation before Federal District Courts and the International Trade Commission, 50 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1699, 1702-04 (2009)
69. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/randall-r-raderchief-judge.html
70. Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1, 18 (2001).
71. www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/rulesof-practice/IOPsMaster.pdf
72. Paul R. Michel, Past, Present, and Future in the Life of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 59 AM. U. L. REV. 1199, 1206 (2010).
73. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/Statistics/ med%20disp%20time%20merits-table.pdf.
74. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/the-court/statistics/ Caseload-by-Category-Appeals-Filed-2012.pdf.
75. Kristin Bumiller, Choice of Forum in Diversity Cases: Analysis of a Survey and Implications for Reform, 15 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 749, 755-68 (1980-81)
76. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0907/outfront-patent-law-texas- plaintiffparadise.html.
77. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1878966;
78. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/24ward.html.
79. http://www.census.gov/popfinder (last visited Mar. 6, 2014).
80. See Jeanne C. Fromer, Patentography, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1444, 1453-55 (2010)
81. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2249896.
82. Robert P. Greenspoon, Is the United States Finally Ready for a Patent Small Claims Court?, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 549, 556 (2009).
83. http://www.courts.state.md.us/businesstech/index.html (last visited Mar. 6, 2014).
84. Christopher R. Drahozal, Business Courts and the Future of Arbitration, 10 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT RESOL. 491, 492 (2009).
85. See Ember Reichgott Junge, Business Courts: Efficient Justice or Two-Tiered Elitism?, 24 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 315, 317-18 (1998).
86. See Thomas H. Case & Scott R. Miller, An Appraisal of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 57 S. CAL. L. REV. 301, 310 (1984).
87. See, e.g., Matthew D. Henry & John L. Turner, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Impact on Patent Litigation, 35 J. LEGAL STUD. 85, 114 (2006).
88. See Megan M. La Belle, Patent Law as Public Law, 20 GEO. MASON L. REV. 41, 61-65 (2012).
89. see Megan M. La Belle, "Reverse" Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions: A Proposed Solution for Medtronic, 162 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 43, 53 (2013),
90. http://www.pennlawreview.com/online/162-U-Pa-L-Rev-Online-43.pdf
91. See Jonathan Remy Nash, Examining the Power of Federal Courts to Certify Questions of State Law, 88 CORNELL L. REV. 1672, 1674 (2003).
92. See Bruce M. Selya, Certified Madness: Ask a Silly Question . . . , 29 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 677, 685 (1995).
93. http://www.srr.com/article/interview-judge-richard-posner-patent- litigation
94. See DAN L. BURK & MARK A. LEMLEY, THE PATENT CRISIS AND HOW THE COURTS CAN SOLVE IT 4 (2009).
95. Jonathan Remy Nash & Rafael I. Pardo, An Empirical Investigation into Appellate Structure and the Perceived Quality of Appellate Review, 61 VAND. L. REV. 1745, 1747 (2008).