DOCSLIB.ORG

“Great Dissenter,” Her Influence on the Patent Dialogue, and Why It Matters, 19 Vand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The Article looks through the lens of one of the Federal Circuit’s founders, Judge Pauline Newman, whose opinions have been instrumental in developing patent law over the last thirty years. These opinions reveal the consistency and coherence of her judicial philosophy and a sincere commitment to the mission of the Federal Circuit, a court she helped to create. Moreover, her dissents, particularly over the last twenty years, serve as an institutional record for course correction even as the court continues to navigate new fault * Associate Professor and Director, Center for Intellectual Property, Information and Privacy Law, The John Marshall Law School. I am grateful to Jim Brookshire, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Van Economou, Bill Ford, Stuart Ford, Hugh Hansen, Walt Kendall, Andrew Michaels, Bill Mock, Janice Mueller, Judge Newman, Sandy Olken, Matt Sag, Josh Sarnoff, and Mark Wojcik for their helpful comments, suggestions, and encouragement. I am also grateful to Dean John Corkery as well as Associate Deans Anthony Niedwiecki and Julie Spanbauer for their support and encouragement, and to my colleagues at the Faculty Works in Progress presentation for their helpful questions and comments. Adam Ernette, JD ’17, provided outstanding research and editorial assistance. Thanks also to Ben Lee, JD ’16, for editorial assistance. All errors and omissions remain my own. This article is dedicated to the memory of my father, Lim Seng Huat (February 1, 1950 – August 18, 2016). 873 874 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. [Vol. XIX:4:873 lines brought about by the America Invents Act, the globalization of patent litigation, and disruptive technologies that challenge the compact of patent law today. The study involved a review of 1,789 cases and 4,981 law review articles to give 10,461 datapoints. An in-person interview with Judge Newman, conducted over two sessions, complements the quantitative dimension of this Article. Her frank insights fill the gaps in the facts and quantitative findings. They also provide a fresh and reflective assessment of her dissents. The data confirms that Judge Newman is the Federal Circuit’s most prolific dissenter and that her dissents resonate with the Supreme Court, her colleagues, and academic commentators more than those of any other Federal Circuit judge. The data identifies her ideological supporters and detractors on the court, but her influence with those people and the industry is more nuanced than it might appear at first blush. The Article also will paint the nuanced picture of her influence on critical challenges in patent law that the Federal Circuit continues to contend with today. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 875 II. THE DYNAMICS OF DISSENT ....................................................... 881 A. Why Do Judges Dissent? ........................................................ 883 1. To Formally Express Disagreement ............................... 886 2. To Influence the Outcome ............................................... 888 3. To Send a Signal .............................................................. 889 B. Why Study Dissent at the Federal Circuit? .......................... 891 C. Patent Law’s “Great Dissenter” ............................................. 897 1. The Federal Circuit’s “Most Prolific Contrarian” .......... 901 2. Of Suppressed Dissents ................................................... 902 3. “Not a Burger” ................................................................. 908 III. AN EMPIRICAL PORTRAIT OF JUDGE NEWMAN’S DISSENTS: ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................................... 911 A. Record of Number of Dissidents ............................................ 912 B. Proxies of Influence: A Snapshot ........................................... 916 1. Citations in the Same Case ............................................. 918 2. Citations in a Different Case .......................................... 920 3. Citations by the En Banc Court and Supreme Court .... 921 4. Citations by Law Reviews ............................................... 924 5. Outcomes on Appeal ........................................................ 926 C. Industries & Lower Courts .................................................... 927 2017] THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S GREAT DISSENTER 875 D. “Allies” & “Adversaries” ........................................................ 938 E. Contentions ............................................................................ 944 1. Validity ............................................................................. 946 a. Novelty ........................................................................ 948 b. Nonobviousness ........................................................... 951 c. Disclosure .................................................................... 954 d. Statutory Subject Matter ............................................ 956 2. Infringement .................................................................... 957 a. Claim Construction .................................................... 958 b. The Doctrine of Equivalents ....................................... 961 c. Extraterritoriality and Other Facets of Infringement ............................................................. 967 3. Defenses & Exceptions .................................................... 970 a. Experimental Use & Repair/Reconstruction ............ 971 b. Inequitable Conduct ................................................... 973 4. Remedies .......................................................................... 979 a. Damages ...................................................................... 980 b. Injunctions .................................................................. 980 c. Attorney Fees ............................................................... 981 5. Other Issues ..................................................................... 982 a. Design Patents ............................................................ 983 b. Evidence & Procedure ................................................ 985 c. Prosecution .................................................................. 986 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 989 I. INTRODUCTION Most dissents do not matter, which is how it should be. Society benefits most from cases that are correctly decided, even if not all of them are unanimous. Dissents, when they occur, are rarely heeded because society is chiefly concerned with the law as it is declared, not what the dissent thinks it might or ought to be.1 Thus the dissents often fade into obscurity and the majority holding becomes the conventional wisdom over time. However, the fact remains that judging is an imperfect art. Judges must decide cases whether or not they know the correct 1. ROBERT H. JACKSON, THE SUPREME COURT IN THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT 18–19 (1955) (“The technique of the dissenter often is to exaggerate the holding of the Court beyond the meaning of the majority and then to blast away at the excess. So the poor lawyer with a similar case does not know whether the majority opinion meant what it seemed to say or what the minority said it meant.”). 876 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. [Vol. XIX:4:873 answer and usually under pressing time constraints.2 Dissents matter because, though change is not always obvious, the judicial dialogue sharpens and strengthens the law.3 Even when the issue is fully canvassed and the dissenting judge’s battle for the majority vote is lost, hers may be the clarion call that turns the tide of ideas. Nearly every area of law is marked by the lasting effect of dissents. Justice Holmes argued for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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 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]
  • 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]
  • In Re Bilski and the Future of Business Method and Software Patents
    103 IN RE BILSKI AND THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS METHOD AND SOFTWARE PATENTS ELIZABETH RUZICH* ABSTRACT The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Bilski1 has further mud- dled the standard for determining patentable subject matter. A review of post- Bilski cases from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reveals that the courts cannot apply a consistent standard for the machine-or- transformation test. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to affirm Bilski. In the meantime, patent practitioners must adapt to the changes by amending claims in pending applications and drafting applications to include sufficient references to computer hardware to overcome, or avoid, any rejections for lack of statutory subject matter. * Elizabeth Ruzich is an associate at Patent Law Works in Salt Lake City, UT. 1 In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted sub nom. Bilski v. Doll, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (2009) (No. 08-964) (argued Nov. 9, 2009). Volume 50—Number 1 104 IDEA—The Intellectual Property Law Review I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 104 II. BPAI CASES—LI, HALLIGAN, KOO, CORNEA-HASEGAN, BARNES, AND BECKER ............................................................................................... 107 III. RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 117 IV. SUPREME COURT RULING ................................................................. 119 I. INTRODUCTION Section 101 of the Patent Act states: “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.”2 The first test to come out of this statute is that of utility: all inventions must be useful.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report of Timothy R. Holbrook January 26, 2015
    IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant/Investor AND: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent/Party (Case No. UNCT/14/2) EXPERT REPORT OF TIMOTHY R. HOLBROOK JANUARY 26, 2015 Trade Law Bureau Departments of Justice and of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Lester B. Pearson Building 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2 CANADA 1 I. Background and Qualifications 1. I am Associate Dean of Faculty and Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. I joined the Emory faculty in 2009. Prior to joining Emory, I was a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology from 2000-2009. I also served as the Associate Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law at Chicago-Kent from 2006- 2009. I have taught patent law at least once per year every year since entering the academy, as well as teaching advanced classes in International Intellectual Property, International Patent Law, th and Patent Litigation. I am the co-author of a casebook, PATENT LITIGATION AND STRATEGY (4 Edition 2013), along with the Honorable Kimberly A. Moore, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), and John F. Murphy, a partner at BakerHostetler. I joined the faculty of Chicago-Kent after being an associate at Wiley Rein & Fielding (now Wiley Rein), a 200+ attorney law firm in Washington, DC, where I specialized in patent and appellate litigation. I associated with Wiley Rein after spending six months working in Budapest, Hungary, with the patent firm Danubia.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Methods and Patentable Subject Matter Following in Re Bilski: Is Anything Under the Sun Made by Man Really Patentable Robert A
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 26 | Issue 1 Article 2 2009 Business Methods and Patentable Subject Matter following In re Bilski: Is Anything under the Sun Made by Man Really Patentable Robert A. McFarlane Robert G. Litts Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. McFarlane and Robert G. Litts, Business Methods and Patentable Subject Matter following In re Bilski: Is Anything under the Sun Made by Man Really Patentable, 26 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 35 (2012). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol26/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUSINESS METHODS AND PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER FOLLOWING INRE BILSKI: IS "ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN MADE BY MAN" REALLY PATENTABLE? Robert A. McFarlanet & Robert G. Littstt Abstract The Federal Circuit's decision in In re Bilski sought to answer once andfor all whether, and to what extent, business methods may be patented and to articulate the standard that governs the patentability of all processes. The court's majority opinion both confirmed that there is no exclusion preventing the patenting of business methods and announced a new "machine-or- transformation" test to analyze patents on processes in all fields. Given the controversy surrounding this decision, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari.
    [Show full text]