DOCSLIB.ORG

Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul R View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Florida Levin College of Law University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2012 Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul R. Gugliuzza University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Paul R. Gugliuzza, Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, 100 Geo. L.J. 1437 (2012), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/ facultypub/254 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. 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 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 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 with the patent system.6
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]
  • 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]
  • The Federal Circuit Bar Association 13001 Street, NW, Suite 700
    The Federal Circuit Bar Association 13001 Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 phone 202-408-4205 fax 202-354-5791 www.fedcirbar.org The Federal Circuit Bar Association Sixth Bench & Bar Conference Workbook The Broadmoor Colorado Springs, CO June 26-28, 2004 I The Federal Circuit Bar Association eeeeeee® Thank you to the Sponsors of the Sixth Bench & Bar Conference Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP Banner & Witcoff Ltd Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione PC Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Crowell & Moring LLP Dewey Ballantine LLP Fenwick & West LLP Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dünner LLP Fish & Neave Fitzpatrick Celia Harper & Scinto Foley Hoag LLP Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP Hogan & Hartson LLP Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP Jenner & Block Kaye Scholar LLP Kenyon & Kenyon Kirkland & Ellis LLP Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP McDermott Will & Emery McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP Morgan & Finnegan LLP Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell Morrison & Foerster LLP RatnerPrestia LLC Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Spriggs & Hollingsworth Steptoe & Johnson LLP Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP Weil Gothsal & Manges LLP Wiley Rein & Fielding Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Woodcock Washbum LLP Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP App C-2 West Building The Federal Circuit Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors 2003-2004 Officers PRESIDENT PRESIDENT-ELECT Stephen L. Peterson Charles F. Schill Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dünner, LLP Steptoe & Johnson TREASURER SECRETARY Martha B. Schneider Michael J. Schaengold U.S. Merit Systems Proection Board Patton Boggs Board of Governors V.
    [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]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • “Great Dissenter,” Her Influence on the Patent Dialogue, and Why It Matters, 19 Vand
    UIC School of Law UIC Law Open Access Repository UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship 2017 I Dissent: The Federal Circuit’s “Great Dissenter,” Her Influence on the Patent Dialogue, and Why It Matters, 19 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. 873 (2017) Daryl Lim John Marshall Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Judges Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Daryl Lim, I Dissent: The Federal Circuit’s “Great Dissenter,” Her Influence on the atentP Dialogue, and Why It Matters, 19 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. 873 (2017) https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs/667 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I Dissent: The Federal Circuit’s “Great Dissenter,” Her Influence on the Patent Dialogue, and Why It Matters Daryl Lim* ABSTRACT This Article is the first study to comprehensively explore the centrality of the patent dialogue at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation’s principal patent court from empirical, doctrinal, and policy perspectives. It offers several insights into how the Federal Circuit reaches consensus and when it does not, serving as a window into its inner workings, a reference to academics, judges, and attorneys alike. More broadly, this Article provides a template to study the “legal dialogue” of other judges at the Federal Circuit, those in other Circuits, as well as those in other areas of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Face of the Law School
    The University of Virginia School of Law UVALawyer Fall 2004 The Face of the Law School The University of Virginia School of Law contents UVALawyer Fall 2004 Vol. 28, No. 2 Departments 3 Dean’s Message 4 Law School News 22 Faculty Briefs 4 57 Class Notes 82 In Memoriam 84 In Print 88 Opinion: 32 Corporate Diversity is Invaluable and Incomplete Charles Tribbett III ’80 Features 32 A Man for the Season: Don Yee ’87 Cullen Couch 38 38 Center Sparks Dialogue on Race and Law Denise Forster EDITOR Cullen Couch 42 Behind the Scenes of Brown: E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. ’53 ASSOCIATE EDITOR Denise Forster Cullen Couch CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Margaret Heritage, Earthen Johnson, Luana Mendes-Martinez, 48 Bakke Revisited Mike Marshall, Mary Wood John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73 DESIGN roseberries 52 Klarman Offers New Argument on Origin and Effects of Brown PHOTOGRAPHY Tom Cogill Cullen Couch ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY Ian Bradshaw, Cullen Couch, Susan Baker Kalergis PRINTING Schmitz Press Department text starts here after head 2 Spring2004 dean’s message The Face of the Law School I John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73 This issue of UVALawyer celebrates diversity in the Law School. Diversity, of course, has many dimensions. Perhaps the most important — and certainly the most disputed — is use of diversi- ty as a factor in admissions. At the Law School, assessments of individual applicants begin with intellectual aptitude and academic achievement. We also look for accomplishments and experiences that predict success. These include significant achievement in extracurricular activities, meaningful work experience, successful military service, and contributions to campus or community through service and leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Circuit Justice
    Incorporating amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40. Updated to incorporate emergency amendment language for Fed. R. Cir. 15(f). United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Circuit Justice Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Chief Judge Sharon Prost Circuit and Senior Circuit Judges Pauline Newman Kimberly A. Moore Haldane Robert Mayer Kathleen M. O’Malley S. Jay Plager Jimmie V. Reyna Alan D. Lourie Evan J. Wallach Raymond C. Clevenger, III Richard G. Taranto Alvin A. Schall Raymond T. Chen William C. Bryson Todd M. Hughes Richard Linn Kara F. Stoll Timothy B. Dyk Federal Circuit Rules of Practice (December 1, 2020) – UPDATE Page i Officers of the Court and Senior Staff Peter R. Marksteiner CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE AND CLERK OF COURT Jeffrey Goldberg Jarrett B. Perlow GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK Marilyn Wennes Patrick Barnwell SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT CHIEF DEPUTY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Jessica Perovich Riley Toussaint CIRCUIT LIBRARIAN DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Advisory Council Members Carter G. Phillips, Chair Matthias Kamber Leonard Davis (Ret.) Thomas W. Krause Tara D. Elliott Deanna Tanner Okun Michael R. Franzinger Kevin Parton Arthur J. Gajarsa (Ret.) Adam R. Shartzer Martin F. Hockey, Jr. Robert L. Stoll James F. Holderman (Ret.) David O. Taylor ex officio Peter R. Marksteiner George F. Hutchinson Jeffrey Goldberg Scott M. McCaleb Deborah M. Miron Michael J. Schaengold Sonal N. Mehta Jamie D. Underwood Federal Circuit Rules of Practice (December 1, 2020) – UPDATE Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ....................................................................................................................... xi Title I — Applicability of Rules ..................................................................................... 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 ...................................................................... 1 Scope of Rules; Definition; Title Federal Circuit Rule 1 ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusion and Exclusive Use in Patent Law
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 22, Number 2 Spring 2009 EXCLUSION AND EXCLUSIVE USE IN PATENT LAW Adam Mossoff* I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................321 II. THE MODERN CONCEPTION OF PATENTS AS PROPERTY ..............326 A. Patents and the Right to Exclude .............................................327 B. The Justification for the Exclusion Concept of Patents............330 1. Blocking Patents....................................................................330 2. The Regulation of Patents by the Administrative State.........335 C. The Right to Exclude in the 1952 Patent Act: A Statutory Mandate? ...............................................................................339 III. REDISCOVERING LONG LOST RELATIONS: PROPERTY THEORY AND PATENT LAW...........................................................347 A. Exclusive Use-Rights and Patent Licensing Doctrines in Early American Patent Law...................................................349 B. The Legal Realists’ Use of Patents in Reconceptualizing Property in Land....................................................................360 C. The Genesis of the Exclusion Concept of Patents: Wesley Hohfeld’s Redefining Use-Rights as “Privileges”...........................................................................364 IV. SOME PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS ON THE ROLE OF CONCEPTUAL PROPERTY THEORY IN PATENT LAW......................370 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................378
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately Information Officer. 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate the course of a term, and some 1,000 jurisdiction has been conferred upon the applications of various kinds are filed Supreme Court by various statutes under each year that can be acted upon by a the authority given Congress by the single Justice. Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling Access to Facilities The Supreme Court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Federal holidays. Unless the Court or statutes. Congress has no authority to Chief Justice orders otherwise, the change the original jurisdiction of this Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 Court. p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Rulemaking Power Congress has from Federal legal holidays. The library is time to time conferred upon the open to members of the bar of the Court, Supreme Court power to prescribe rules attorneys for the various Federal of procedure to be followed by the departments and agencies, and Members lower courts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Supreme Court Ruled in June 2014 That Induced
    http://www.law360.com/in-depth/articles/814461?nl_pk=7545a5b5-6a94-47d3-8aa3- 2e19884905c5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=in-depth When the Supreme Court ruled in June 2014 that induced infringement can be found only when one party performs every step of a patent, the high court didn’t just overturn a Federal Circuit decision expanding liability for induced infringement to include companies that perform only some steps, it cast into doubt the Federal Circuit’s overall approach to patent infringement. “The Federal Circuit’s analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous court in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. “The Federal Circuit’s contrary view would ... require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law.” The sharp criticism was all the more awkward coming from a court made up of mostly generalists and directed at the appeals court that was formed more than three decades ago with the mission to unify patent law. But it wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court came down hard on the Federal Circuit, and in all likelihood, it won’t be the last. The Supreme Court has taken a greater interest in patent cases over the past 15 years and is showing no hesitance in reversing the Federal Circuit. In response, the appeals court has been handing down decisions that show some obstinance in bending to the high court, signaling a tussle between the two courts over who should have the final say on patent law. More recently, the Federal Circuit has shown signs that it is laying low by issuing fewer dissents, relying on nonprecedential decisions and taking more cases en banc.
    [Show full text]