DOCSLIB.ORG

Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul Gugliuzza Boston University School of Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul Gugliuzza Boston University School of Law Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 6-2012 Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul Gugliuzza Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul Gugliuzza, Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, 100 Georgetown Law Journal 1437 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/168 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction PAUL R. GUGLIUZZA* Thirty years ago, Congress created the Federal Circuit for the overriding purpose of bringing uniformity to patent law. Yet less than half of the court’s cases are patent cases. Most Federal Circuit cases involve veterans benefits, government-employment actions, government contracts, and other matters. Al- though existing literature purports to study the Federal Circuit as an institution, these projects focus largely on the court’s patent cases. This Article, by contrast, considers whether the court’s nonpatent docket might affect the development of patent law and whether the court’s specialization in patent law has conse- quences for how it decides nonpatent cases. These inquiries result in two primary contributions. First, drawing on institu- tional-choice theory, this Article suggests that certain litigants—particularly military veterans but also government employees and government contractors— should not be forced to litigate appeals in a specialized court in Washington, D.C. Second, the Article offers a structural remedy that might help cure a frequently discussed problem with Federal Circuit patent law: that it is not sufficiently sensitive to innovation policy. By replacing some of the court’s current nonpatent docket with a variety of commercial disputes (over which the Federal Circuit would not have exclusive jurisdiction), the court might better understand the role that patents play in stimulating (or impeding) innovation in different industries. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1439 I. SPECIALIZED ADJUDICATION ............................. 1445 A. SPECIALIZED COURTS: THE THEORETICAL DEBATE ............ 1446 B. SPECIALIZED APPELLATE COURTS IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM ...... 1451 * Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Florida Levin College of Law. © 2012, Paul R. Gugliuzza. For comments and helpful discussions, I thank Martin Adelman, Greg Castanias, John Duffy, Lee Epstein, Alyson Flournoy, John Golden, Will Hubbard, Sapna Kumar, Mark Lemley, Charlene Luke, Jason Nance, Rachel Rebouche´, Elizabeth Rowe, Sharon Rush, Steven Schooner, David Schwartz, Danny Sokol, Jerry Stouck, and the editors of The Georgetown Law Journal. Thanks also to participants at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference, the Junior Faculty Federal Courts Work- shop, the Florida Legal Scholarship Forum, and a works-in-progress workshop at the University of Florida. 1437 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945039 1438THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 100:1437 II. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT:PURPOSE AND JURISDICTION ............. 1453 A.“THE COURT AMERICAN BUSINESS WANTED AND GOT: THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT” ....... 1454 B.“NOT A ‘SPECIALIZED COURT’”........................ 1458 C. THE “OTHER” FEDERAL CIRCUIT ....................... 1461 III. PROBLEMS WITH THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S JURISDICTION .......... 1464 A. LACK OF “GENERALIZING” INFLUENCE FROM THE NONPATENT DOCKET ....................................... 1465 1. Narrowness of the Federal Circuit’s Nonpatent Jurisdiction ................................. 1465 2. Possibilities for Generalizing Influence Under the Current Structure ............................. 1468 B. A PARADOX: IS THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S JURISDICTION ALSO TOO BROAD? ....................................... 1475 C. EVALUATING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S NONPATENT JURISDICTION . 1476 1. Suspect Rationales for Centralization: Veterans and Personnel Appeals ............................ 1477 a. Veterans Appeals .......................... 1478 b. Personnel Appeals, Briefly ................... 1484 c. Concluding Thoughts on Veterans and Personnel Appeals: The Federal Circuit’s Self-Image ....... 1485 2. Favoritism and Formalism: Government-Contracts Appeals .................................... 1487 3. A Diversity of Expertise? ....................... 1492 a. Noncontract Appeals from the Court of Federal Claims ................................. 1492 b. Appeals from the Court of International Trade .... 1492 c. Trademark Appeals ........................ 1493 IV. TRANSFORMING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ...................... 1494 A. NEW JURISDICTIONAL POSSIBILITIES ..................... 1495 B. IMPLEMENTING A NEW JURISDICTIONAL MODEL ............. 1500 C. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES .......................... 1502 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945039 2012]RETHINKING FEDERAL CIRCUIT JURISDICTION 1439 CONCLUSION ............................................ 1505 INTRODUCTION The Federal Circuit is increasingly in the headlines for its cutting-edge decisions on patent law. Patents on human genes, methods of doing business, and blockbuster pharmaceuticals have pushed the decisions of this relatively specialized federal court to the fore of public consciousness.1 But few stories mention that patent cases comprise less than half of the Federal Circuit’s caseload. Almost sixty percent of the court’s cases involve matters such as veterans benefits, government-employment disputes, and government con- tracts.2 Patent law scholars have also largely overlooked this significant compo- nent of the Federal Circuit’s work.3 Despite recent efforts to examine the Federal Circuit as an institution, commentators have not considered how these nonpatent cases affect Federal Circuit patent law or, conversely, how the centralization of patent appeals has affected nonpatent litigants in the Federal Circuit.4 This Article explores these issues and provides a transsubstantive analysis of Federal Circuit jurisdiction. Yet it is situated within intellectual property litera- ture tying critiques of Federal Circuit patent law to the court’s jurisdictional structure. One important criticism of the Federal Circuit is that judicially crafted patent law is not sufficiently responsive to the philosophy of the Patent Act, to national competition policy, and to the needs of researchers and technology 1. See, e.g., Bristol, Sanofi Win Plavix Ruling, L.A. TIMES, Dec. 9, 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/ 2006/dec/09/business/fi-plavix9; Charles Lane, A Powerful Voice in Patent Disputes,WASH.POST, Nov. 6, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110501171.html; Andrew Pollack, Despite Gene Patent Victory, Myriad Genetics Faces Challenges, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 24, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/despite-gene-patent-victory-myriad-genetics-faces- challenges.html; Andrew Pollack, Ruling Upholds Gene Patent in Cancer Test, N.Y. TIMES, July 29, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/business/gene-patent-in-cancer-test-upheld-by-appeals- panel.html; John Russell, Lilly Gets Win with Ruling on Evista,INDIANAPOLIS STAR, Sept. 2, 2010, http://www.indystar.com/article/20100902/BUSINESS03/9020422/Lilly-gets-win-ruling-Evista; John Schwartz, Justices Take Broad View of Business Method Patents, N.Y. TIMES, June 28, 2010, http:// www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/business/29patent.html; see also Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., 659 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Plavix); Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 653 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (gene patents), vacated sub nom. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1794 (2012); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 619 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Evista); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (business-method patents), aff’d sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Plavix); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (same). 2. See infra notes 20, 133 and accompanying text. 3. But cf. David L. Schwartz & Lee Petherbridge, Legal Scholarship and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: An Empirical Study of a National Circuit,26BERKELEY TECH. L.J. (forthcoming 2012) (manuscript at 32 n.71, 39), available at http://ssrn.com/abstractϭ1725543 (noting that the Federal Circuit cites legal scholarship more frequently in patent cases than other types of cases, raising questions about whether this disparity is normatively desirable). 4. See, e.g., Symposium, The Federal Circuit as an Institution,43LOY. L.A. L. REV. 749 (2010) (featuring twelve articles, all focusing on patent law). 1440THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 100:1437 users.5 Critiquing the judicial methodology that has led patent law to this point, John Thomas has chronicled the Federal Circuit’s penchant for “adjudicative rule formalism,” favoring bright-line rules over malleable standards that would allow lower courts to tailor patent law to the diverse industries that interact
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007
    American University Law Review Volume 56 | Issue 4 Article 1 2007 Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007 Jay S. Plager United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Plager, Jay S. “Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007.” American University Law Review 56, no. 4 (February 2007): 751-760. This Foreword is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007 Abstract This year marked the twenty-fifth nniva ersary of the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The nniva ersary was acknowledged with appropriate ceremony, including an en banc session of the court on April 2 attended by various luminaries in the judicial and political branches of the United States. The somewhat tongue-in-cheek title of this essay is intended to suggest an important idea about the court today: with increased visibility, significance, and impact have come consequences, some desirable, some not. This essay undertook a brief review of how the court got where it is, and a look at what these consequences may be.
    [Show full text]
  • Emotional and Linguistic Analysis of Dialogue from Animated Comedies: Homer, Hank, Peter and Kenny Speak
    Emotional and Linguistic Analysis of Dialogue from Animated Comedies: Homer, Hank, Peter and Kenny Speak. by Rose Ann Ko2inski Thesis presented as a partial requirement in the Master of Arts (M.A.) in Human Development School of Graduate Studies Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario © Rose Ann Kozinski, 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-57666-3 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-57666-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Flexible Welt Der Simpsons
    BACHELORARBEIT Herr Benjamin Lehmann Die flexible Welt der Simpsons 2012 Fakultät: Medien BACHELORARBEIT Die flexible Welt der Simpsons Autor: Herr Benjamin Lehmann Studiengang: Film und Fernsehen Seminargruppe: FF08w2-B Erstprüfer: Professor Peter Gottschalk Zweitprüfer: Christian Maintz (M.A.) Einreichung: Mittweida, 06.01.2012 Faculty of Media BACHELOR THESIS The flexible world of the Simpsons author: Mr. Benjamin Lehmann course of studies: Film und Fernsehen seminar group: FF08w2-B first examiner: Professor Peter Gottschalk second examiner: Christian Maintz (M.A.) submission: Mittweida, 6th January 2012 Bibliografische Angaben Lehmann, Benjamin: Die flexible Welt der Simpsons The flexible world of the Simpsons 103 Seiten, Hochschule Mittweida, University of Applied Sciences, Fakultät Medien, Bachelorarbeit, 2012 Abstract Die Simpsons sorgen seit mehr als 20 Jahren für subversive Unterhaltung im Zeichentrickformat. Die Serie verbindet realistische Themen mit dem abnormen Witz von Cartoons. Diese Flexibilität ist ein bestimmendes Element in Springfield und erstreckt sich über verschiedene Bereiche der Serie. Die flexible Welt der Simpsons wird in dieser Arbeit unter Berücksichtigung der Auswirkungen auf den Wiedersehenswert der Serie untersucht. 5 Inhaltsverzeichnis Inhaltsverzeichnis ............................................................................................. 5 Abkürzungsverzeichnis .................................................................................... 7 1 Einleitung ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Does Strict Territoriality Toll the End of Software Patents?
    NOTES DOES STRICT TERRITORIALITY TOLL THE END OF SOFTWARE PATENTS? James Ernstmeyer* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1267 I. UNITED STATES PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 1269 A. Defining Software ...................................................................... 1269 B. Copyright Protection for Software ............................................ 1270 C. Patent Protection for Software .................................................. 1272 D. The Backlash Against Intellectual Property Rights in Software ..................................................................................... 1274 E. In re Bilski Turns Back the Clock .............................................. 1278 II. UNITED STATES SOFTWARE PATENTS IN CROSS-BORDER TRADE .... 1280 A. Global Economic Stakes in United States Software Patents ..... 1280 B. Congressional Protection of Patents in Cross-Border Trade ......................................................................................... 1281 C. Extraterritoriality Concerns in Applying § 271(f) to Software Patents ........................................................................ 1283 III. DO PATENTS PROTECT SOFTWARE? – WOULD COPYRIGHTS DO BETTER? ............................................................................................ 1287 A. Effects of the Microsoft v. AT&T Loophole .............................. 1287 B. Combining
    [Show full text]
  • Throwing Judge Bryson's Curveball: a Pro Patent View of Process Claims As Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW P':L THROWING JUDGE BRYSON'S CURVEBALL: A PRO PATENT VIEW OF PROCESS CLAIMS AS PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER CHRISTOPHER A. HARKINS ABSTRACT Can a baseball pitcher patent a method of throwing a curveball? On May 8, 2008, Judge Bryson posed that hypothetical as a way of stressing a point during the oral argument of In re Bilski, one of the most highly-attended hearings in the twenty-five year history of the Federal Circuit. In the Bilski case, the Federal Circuit will decide whether to embrace a new patentability test that redefines what is patent-eligible subject matter in the United States, or to create a fourth no-no to patent eligibility. At stake are many computer software patents and business method patents that form the lifeblood of financial services and software companies. In a very real sense, the hypothetical highlights the ultimate tension between diametrically opposing views of patents-as protecting inventions through financial incentives that encourage innovation or as spurring excessive litigation through overprotection that stifles innovation. Copyright © 2008 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Christopher A. Harkins, Throwing Judge Bryson's Curveball: A Pro Patent View of Process Claims as Patent-EligibleSubject Matter, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 701 (2008). THROWING JUDGE BRYSON'S CURVEBALL: A PRO PATENT VIEW OF PROCESS CLAIMS AS PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER CHRISTOPHER A. HARKINS* INTRODUCTION Judge Bryson's hypothetical-joined by Judges Lourie and Rader-hints at a remarkable move to silence a growing anti-patent sentiment. Reading the tea leaves from the oral argument, one might predict that the hypothetical shows a willingness to embrace a progressive, open view of patent eligibility notwithstanding the trend of stricter requirements of patentability1 that have arisen amidst the swelling public disapproval of the patent system.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference
    -REPORTOF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 16, 1999 WASHINGTON, D.C. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES CHIEFJUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, PRESIDING LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, SECRETARY REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 16, 1999 Contents Call of the Conference........................... ......... ....4 Reports ...................................... ........ ....4 Elections...................................... .......... ....4 Executive Committee............................ .... ... ...4 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance ........ .......... ....5 Budgetary Matters......................... .... .... ..6 Federal Courts Improvement Legislation ......... .... ... ...6 Miscellaneous Actions...................... ......... ....7 Committee on the Administrative Office .............. ......... ....7 Committee Activities....................... .......... ....8 Committee on Automation and Technology ........... ......... ....8 Courtroom Technologies .................... ...... ... 8 Long Range Plan for Information Technology. ....... ... 8 Access to Internet Sites .................... Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System .............. .9 Bankruptcy Judgeships ................................... .9 Bankruptcy Estate Administration ........................... 10 Committee on the Budget....................................... Committee Activities..................................... Committee on Codes of Conduct.................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tenino Parade Celebrates Completion of Capstones
    Stepping Up for Cure The Agony of / Main 14 Lewis County Firefighters Train for Massive Stair Climb / Life 1 Defeat $1 Early Week Edition Tuesday, Reaching 110,000 Readers in Print and Online — www.chronline.com Feb. 3, 2015 Hot-Handed Ony National Problem Loggers Down Mules as C2BL Teams Local Frozen Food Company Hampered Jockey for Playoff Positioning / Sports 2 by Ongoing Port Slowdown / Main 3 Broker County Hopes to Recoup $800,000 Breaks Investment in Former Ammo Plant Super Bowl FINANCIAL IMPACT: Nosler The sudden closure of a Lewis County commission- nition manufacturer that ended Dreams Packwood ammunition factory ers in 2009 approved a loan of up being bought by Nosler of Will Pay on Lease for Two in January not only left 17 peo- $300,000 — which later be- Bend, Oregon, in 2013. More Years After Closing ple searching for a job, but it has came a grant — and another Nosler shuttered the plant for County Packwood Facility Lewis County officials looking for $800,000 to improve and in January, leaving buildings into how they can recoup their build two separate buildings at tailor-made for manufactur- Assessor By Christopher Brewer investment into the facility on a the Packwood Business Park for ing suddenly unused. The East [email protected] long-term basis. Silver State Armory, an ammu- please see AMMO, page Main 12 OUT OF LUCK: Centralia Woman Hoped to Attend Big Game, But Super Bowl Tickets Never Materialized Tenino Parade Celebrates By Dameon Pesanti [email protected] Dianne Dorey bought her Super Bowl tickets less than Completion of Capstones five minutes after the Se- ahawks won the NFC Champi- onship Game.
    [Show full text]
  • PATENT WARS: the ATTACK of BLOCKCHAIN 28 TXIPLJ 241 | Austin Paalz | Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal
    PATENT WARS: THE ATTACK OF BLOCKCHAIN 28 TXIPLJ 241 | Austin Paalz | Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Document Details All Citations: 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 241 Search Details Jurisdiction: National Delivery Details Date: November 5, 2020 at 12:45 AM Delivered By: kiip kiip Client ID: KIIPLIB02 Status Icons: © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. PATENT WARS: THE ATTACK OF BLOCKCHAIN, 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 241 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 241 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 2020 Article Austin Paalz1 Copyright © 2020 by State Bar of Texas, Intellectual Property Law Section; Austin Paalz PATENT WARS: THE ATTACK OF BLOCKCHAIN Table of Contents I. Introduction 242 II. The History of Blockchain Technology 244 A. What is Blockchain? 244 B. Current Applications of Blockchain 247 C. Comparing Blockchain to Software 249 III. The Subject Matter Eligibility Test 250 A. An Early Look at the Subject Matter Eligibility of Patents 251 B. A More Modern Look at Subject Matter Eligibility 254 C. The Current Standard for Subject Matter Eligibility--Alice Corp. 257 D. The Present Impact of Alice Corp. 259 IV. Applying Alice Corp. To Blockchain Technology 260 A. General Analysis of the Subject Matter Eligibility of Blockchain Technology Under the Alice 262 Corp. Test B. Analysis of Blockchain Patents Under the Alice Corp. Framework 264 C. The Effect of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines 268 V. Implications of Patenting Blockchain 270 VI. Conclusion 274 *242 Blockchain has rapidly become one of the most popular technologies that companies are scrambling to integrate into their businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilski V. Kappos: the Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Circuit's
    Bilski v. Kappos : The Supreme Court Rejects The Federal Circuit's "Machine-or-Transformation" Test As The Sole Test In Determining Whether A Claimed Business Method Is Patent Eligible While Keeping The Door Open For Business Method Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By: Proprietary Rights Committee Computer Law Section State Bar of Michigan Chairman David R. Syrowik Brooks Kushman P.C. Southfield, Michigan Information Technology Law Section Annual Meeting September 22, 2010 Plymouth, Michigan Bilski v. Kappos : The Supreme Court Rejects The Federal Circuit's "Machine-or-Transformation" Test As The Sole Test In Determining Whether A Claimed Business Method Is Patent Eligible While Keeping The Door Open For Business Method Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Introduction In the Bilski case, 1 on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that business method patent claims for hedging risk did not define a patentable process under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but rather was an attempt to patent an abstract idea. Prior Supreme Court precedent 2 provides that such ideas, laws of nature and physical phenomena are specific exceptions to § 101's dynamic and wide scope as to patentable subject matter. 3 Despite an extensive concurring opinion authored by Justice Stevens, 4 who would have held that all business methods are unpatentable, Justice Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, held that a business method was one kind of "method" that, at least in some circumstances, is eligible for patenting under § 101. 5 In saying this, the Court rejected the exclusivity of the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test in determining patent- eligible subject matter under the statute.
    [Show full text]
  • The Simpsons Tapped out - Analysis and Proposed Events Overview
    The Simpsons Tapped Out - Analysis and Proposed Events Overview Players like myself have faithfully enjoyed The Simpsons Tapped Out (TSTO) for several years. The developers have continued to expand the game and provide updates in response to player feedback. This has been evident in tools such as the IRS Building tap radius, the Introduction Unemployment Office Job Manager and the Cut & Paste feature, all of which are greatly appreciated by players and have extended the playability of TSTO for many of us who would have otherwise found the game too tedious to continue once their Springfields grew so large. Notably, as respects Events, positive reactive efforts were identifiable in the 2017 Winter Event and the modified use of craft currency. As evident from the forums, many dedicated and heavily-invested players have grown tired with some of TSTO's stale mechanics and gameplay, as well as the proliferation of uninspired content, much of which has little to no place in Springfield, if even the world of "The Simpsons." This Premise player attitude is often displayed in the later stages of major Events as players begin to sense monotony due to a lack in changes throughout an Event, resulting in a feeling that one is merely grinding through the game to stock up on largely unwanted Items. Content-driven major Events geared toward "The Simpsons" version of Springfield with changes of pace, more like mini-Events, and the Solution addition of new Effects, enabling a variety of looks while injecting a new degree of both familiarity and customization for players. The proposed Events and gameplay changes are steeped in canonical content rather than original content.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilski V. Kappos: Everything Old Is New Again
    Digital Commons @ Georgia Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 4-1-2011 Bilski v. Kappos: Everything Old is New Again Joe Miller University of Georgia School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation Joe Miller, Bilski v. Kappos: Everything Old is New Again , 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1 (2011), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/777 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYMPOSIUM BILKSI V KAPPOS: EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN INTRODUCTION by Joseph Scott Miller As a threshold matter, what types of things are patentable? What types of things are not? Section 101 of the Patent Act lists four big categories: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."' The operative language has scarcely changed since it was first enacted in 1793. Most patent claims to products fit squarely within one of the three product-style categories and thus cause no analytical difficulties. From fluoxetine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in Prozac (U.S. Patent No. 4,314,081), to bubble wrap (U.S. Patent No. 3,142,599), to the air- . Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School. 2010 0 Joseph Scott Miller.
    [Show full text]
  • JCUS-SEP 98, Pp
    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES September 15, 1999 The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C., on September 15, 1999, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the Conference were present: First Circuit: Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., District of New Hampshire Second Circuit: Chief Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr. Chief Judge Charles P. Sifton, Eastern District of New York Third Circuit: Chief Judge Edward R. Becker Chief Judge Donald E. Ziegler, Western District of Pennsylvania Fourth Circuit: Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III Chief Judge Charles H. Haden II, Southern District of West Virginia Fifth Circuit: Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King Judge Hayden W. Head, Jr., Southern District of Texas Judicial Conference of the United States Sixth Circuit: Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., Middle District of Tennessee Seventh Circuit: Chief Judge Richard A. Posner Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., Northern District of Indiana Eighth Circuit: Chief Judge Roger L. Wollman Judge James M. Rosenbaum, District of Minnesota Ninth Circuit: Chief Judge Procter Hug, Jr. Judge Lloyd D. George, District of Nevada Tenth Circuit: Chief Judge Stephanie K. Seymour Judge Ralph G. Thompson, Western District of Oklahoma Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge R. Lanier Anderson III Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Middle District of Florida 40 September 15, 1999 District of Columbia Circuit: Judge Laurence H. Silberman1 Chief Judge Norma H.
    [Show full text]