DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 74 Issue 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 74 Issue 1 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW VOLUME 74 ISSUE 1 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ARTHUR T. VANDERBILT HALL Washington Square New York City New York University Annual Survey of American Law is in its seventy-fifth year of publication. L.C. Cat. Card No.: 46-30523 ISSN 0066-4413 All Rights Reserved New York University Annual Survey of American Law is published biannually at 110 West 3rd Street, New York, New York 10012. Subscription price: $30.00 per year (plus $4.00 for foreign mailing). Single issues are available at $16.00 per issue (plus $1.00 for foreign mailing). For regular subscriptions or single issues, contact the Annual Survey editorial office. Back issues may be ordered directly from William S. Hein & Co., Inc., by mail (2350 North Forest Rd., Getzville, NY 14068), phone (800-828-7571), fax (716-883-8100), or email ([email protected]). Back issues are also available in PDF format through HeinOnline (http://hein online.org). All works copyright © 2018 by the author, except when otherwise expressly indicated. For permission to reprint an article or any portion thereof, please address your written request to the New York University Annual Survey of American Law. Copyright: Except as otherwise provided, the author of each article in this issue has granted permission for copies of that article to be made for classroom use, provided that: (1) copies are distributed to students at or below cost; (2) the author and journal are identified on each copy; and (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy. Manuscripts: The Annual Survey invites the submission of unsolicited manuscripts. Text and citations should conform to the 20th edition of A Uniform System of Citation. Please enclose an envelope with return postage if you would like your manuscript returned after consideration. Editorial Office: 110 West 3rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10012 (212) 998-6540 (212) 995-4032 Fax http://www.annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org For what avail the plough or sail Or land or life, if freedom fail? EMERSON iv NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 2018–2019 BOARD OF EDITORS Editor-in-Chief KATHRYN MORRIS Managing Editors DANIEL W. BLAZE MICHAEL FREEDMAN MARISSA L. KIBLER DAVID MOOSMANN H. CHASE WEIDNER Development Editors Executive Article Editors Senior Articles Editors BRIAN R. GOTTLIEB EDWIN D. ABUNDIS KATHERINE E. CORIC SAMUEL A. SEHAM ALEX INMAN ISA M. HERRERA MOYA ALLYSON N. KALEITA AMY I. WANN Note Editors MICHAEL D. REBUCK NATALIE GOW AARON C.F. SALERNO JOSEPH M. LEVY SUZANNE D. TRIVETTE KIONE WONG Online Editor Inclusivity Editor KIRSTIE YU JOSHUA M. PIRUTINSKY ALLYSON N. KALEITA Articles Editors CLARA ARAGONE-DIAZ KIMBERLY T. DREXLER IGNATIUS NAM DEVIKA M. BALARAM YIRAN DU NEENA DEB SEN MIKHAIL BATSURA RANDOLL THEODORA FISHER NICOLE H. SNYDER ELLIOTT P. BARRON LILLIAN GRINNELL JACOB L. STANLEY JACOB A. BRALY JOSHUA HABERL KATHERINE T. STEIN ALLISON S. CANDAL SAMUEL F. HIMEL IAN M. SWENSON ROBERT COBBS AVI LAHAM BRETT M. WEINSTEIN CAROLINE DIAZ CHRISTINE J. LEE DARREN D. YANG DYLAN LONERGAN Staff Editors JOSHUA BARKOW SASHA KAWAKAMI CALEB ROCHE YOSEF BARUH KRISTEN LIANG JORDAN ROSMAN LAUREN RACHEL BOBERSKY KATHLEEN M. LEWIS JESSICA RUBIN SAMUEL BOORSTEIN KAREN LUO SANDER SABA MELANIE D. BORKER AARON MATTIS ELIZABETH SAMIOS TIFFANI CHANROO ELIZABETH A. MORGAN JESSICA SANDOR EKATERINA CHERNOVA SIDNEY MOSKOWITZ DANIELA SERNA BERRIO AUDREY CRABTREE-HANNIGAN KELLY NABAGLO JOSEPH SHUI ANNE S. COVENTRY JOEL NAIMAN ELINA SIGAL AMANDA DEMASI YELENA NIAZYAN YIANNI TSESMELIS GABRIEL EISENBERGER TRENTON S. PACER IBOH UMODU JOANNA M. FALEY GABRIELLE N. PACIA ALYSSA WAARAMAA KIMBERLY FAYETTE ERIC S. PADILLA KASI L. WAUTLET HANNAH GOLDBERG JORDANA PALGON SAMANTHA WILHELM DINO ILIEVSKI MEGHAN PATZER KE YANG XIA JONATHAN P. VARDEH JAFFE JUSTIN PEROFF EVAN T. YOO OLIVIA POSS This Volume of New York University Annual Survey of American Law is respectfully dedicated to JUDGE PAULINE NEWMAN JUDGE PAULINE NEWMAN JUDGE PAULINE NEWMAN Pauline Newman was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. From 1982 to 1984, Judge Newman was Special Adviser to the United States Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference on the Revision of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. She served on the advisory committee to the Domestic Policy Review of Industrial Innovation from 1978 to 1979 and on the State Department Advisory Committee on International Intel- lectual Property from 1974 to 1984. From 1969 to 1984, Judge New- man served as director, Patent, Trademark and Licensing Department, FMC Corp. From 1961 to 1962 she worked for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a science policy specialist in the Department of Natural Sciences. She served as patent attorney and house counsel of FMC Corp. from 1954 to 1969 and as research scientist, American Cyanamid Co. from 1951 to 1954. Judge Newman received a B.A. from Vassar College in 1947, an M.A. from Columbia University in 1948, a Ph.D. from Yale University in 1952 and an LL.B. from New York Univer- sity School of Law in 1958. DEDICATEES OF NYU ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 1942 Harry Woodburn Chase 1979 David L. Bazelon 1943 Frank H. Sommer 1980 Edward Weinfeld 1944 Manley O. Hudson 1981 William J. Brennan, Jr. 1945 Carl McFarland 1982 Shirley M. Hufstedler 1946 George B. Galloway 1983 Thurgood Marshall Robert M. LaFollette, Jr. 1984 Hans A. Linde A.S. Mike Monroney 1985 J. Skelly Wright 1947 Roscoe Pound 1986 William Wayne Justice 1948 Arthur T. Vanderbilt 1987 Frank M. Johnson, Jr. 1949 Herbert Hoover 1988 Bernard Schwartz 1950 Bernard Baruch 1989 Barbara Jordan 1951 Robert P. Patterson* 1990 Harry A. Blackmun 1952 Phanor J. Ede 1991 Martin Lipton 1953 Edward S. Corwin 1992/93 John Paul Stevens 1954 Arthur Lehman Goodhart 1994 Judith S. Kaye 1955 John Johnston Parker 1995 Hillary Rodham Clinton 1956 Henry T. Heald 1996 Sandra Day O’Connor 1957 Herbert F. Goodrich 1997 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1958 Harold H. Burton 1998 Janet Reno 1959 Charles E. Clark 1999 Alexander L. Boraine 1960 Whitney North Seymour Desmond M. Tutu 1961 Austin Wakeman Scott 2000 George Mitchell 1962 Fred H. Blume 2001 Norman Dorsen 1963 Laurence P. Simpson 2002 Laurence H. Tribe 1964 Edmond Cahn* 2003 John Sexton 1965 Charles S. Desmond 2004 Richard Posner 1966 Tom C. Clark 2005 Antonin Scalia 1967 Francis J. Putnam 2006 Ronald Dworkin 1968/69 Russell D. Niles 2007 Stephen G. Breyer 1969/70 Jack L. Kroner* 2008 Anthony G. Amsterdam 1970/71 Frank Rowe Kenison 2009 Patricia M. Wald 1971/72 Robert A. Leflar 2010 Arthur R. Miller 1972/73 Justine Wise Polier 2011 Cass R. Sunstein 1973/74 Walter J. Derenberg 2012 Derrick Bell* 1974/75 Robert B. McKay 2013 Guido Calabresi 1976 Herbert Peterfreund 2014 Chief Judge Diane P. Wood 1977 Charles D. Breitel 2015 Judge Jack B. Weinstein 1978 Henry J. Friendly 2016 Sonia Sotomayor * In memoriam SUMMARY OF CONTENTS TRIBUTES Introduction by Alison Wall 1 Judge Raymond Chen 3 Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss 7 Rachel Elsby 12 Daniel Klein 15 James A. Worth 18 Acknowledgment by Judge Pauline Newman 20 ARTICLES THE LOST STORY OF NOTICE AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION Robin J. Effron 23 AN ORAL HISTORY OF RULE 23 Interview with Arthur Miller by Samuel Issacharoff 105 NOTES PREDICTIVE POLICING: THE ARGUMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY Erik Bakke 131 END-TO-END AUTHENTICATION: A FIRST AMENDMENT HOOK TO THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE Leonid Grinberg 173 CRAMDOWN INTEREST RATES IN THE COMMERCIAL CREDIT CONTEXT: ARGUMENTS FOR THE TWO-STEP APPROACH IN CHAPTER 11 Matthew Wiener 223 VALUE QUALITY SERVICE VALUE We Complete the Picture. In 1932, Joe Christensen founded a company based on Value, Quality and Service. Joe Christensen, Inc. remains the most experienced Law Review printer in the country. Our printing services bridge the gap between your editorial skills and the production of a high-quality publication. We ease the demands of your assignment by offering you the basis of our business—customer service. Value 1540 Adams Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68521-1819 Quality Phone: 1-800-228-5030 FAX: 402-476-3094 email: [email protected] Service Your Service Specialists TRIBUTE TO JUDGE PAULINE NEWMAN ALISON WALL Thank you, Dean Morrison. On behalf of the entire Annual Survey of American Law, I want to welcome you to our Dedication Ceremony in honor of Judge Pauline Newman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Each year, the journal dedicates our upcoming volume to a person who has made a significant contribution to the law. A year ago, I sat with my peers as we brainstormed the type of person we wanted to give this honor to. We wanted someone with a passion for the law. Judge New- man’s passion for the law is indisputable. As the first judge ap- pointed directly to the Federal Circuit in 1984, she still has yet to take senior status over 30 years later. She vehemently defends and advocates for the stability of patent laws, the protection of invest- ments and innovation, and the patent community at large. We wanted someone we look to as a role model for the type of lawyer, scholar, or judge we will strive to become. In Judge New- man, we found more than that: we found a trailblazer for not only women’s rights but for her entire field. She has advocated for a specialized court focused in patent litigation; in fact, she served an integral role in the creation of the very court she still sits on today. She continues to serve as a constant resource to younger women judges and as a source of perspective and insight among interna- tional judicial communities. We wanted someone accomplished and brilliant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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 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]
  • “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]
  • 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]
  • Legal Forms and the Common Law of Patents
    LEGAL FORMS AND THE COMMON LAW OF PATENTS ∗ CRAIG ALLEN NARD INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 51 I. A COMMON LAW ENABLING ARCHITECTURE ....................................... 59 A. Cabining Congressional Intervention ........................................... 59 1. The Structure of the Constitutional IP Clause ......................... 59 2. 1790-1836: Statutory Standards and Legal Innovation ........... 64 B. Courts as Creator and Congress as Codifier ................................ 68 1. The 1836 and 1870 Patent Acts: Correction and Codification, Part I .................................................................. 68 2. The 1952 Patent Act: Correction and Codification, Part II….. ................................................................................. 72 3. The Creation of the Federal Circuit: A Centralized Policy Driver ........................................................................... 74 II. RULES, STANDARDS, AND THE USEFUL ARTS ....................................... 77 A. The Case for Rules ......................................................................... 79 1. Predictability and Certainty ..................................................... 79 2. Cabining Discretion ................................................................. 87 3. Allocating Decision-Making Authority and Substantive Signaling .............................................................. 89 B. The Case for Standards ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Specialization in Specialized Courts
    Copyright 2021 by Melissa F. Wasserman & Jonathan D. Slack Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 115, No. 5 CAN THERE BE TOO MUCH SPECIALIZATION? SPECIALIZATION IN SPECIALIZED COURTS Melissa F. Wasserman & Jonathan D. Slack ABSTRACT—While modern society has embraced specialization, the federal judiciary continues to prize the generalist jurist. This disconnect is at the core of the growing debate on the optimal level of specialization in the judiciary. To date, this discussion has largely revolved around the creation of specialized courts. Opinion specialization, however, provides an alternative, underappreciated method to infuse specialization into the judiciary. In contrast to specialized courts, opinion specialization is understudied and undertheorized. This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, this Article theorizes whether opinion specialization is a desirable practice. It argues that the practice’s costs and benefits are a function of whether the court itself is specialized. More specifically, this Article contends that while opinion specialization may be normatively desirable for generalist courts, it is likely not for specialized tribunals. Perhaps most concerning, this Article argues that opinion specialization in specialized courts increases the likelihood legal doctrine will reflect the idiosyncratic preferences of a few judges. Second, given the concerns associated with opinion specialization in specialized tribunals, this Article empirically tests the extent to which specialization occurs in these specialized courts. We approach this question by examining the process of opinion assignment in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is best known for its near-exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. Utilizing a novel, author-constructed database of Federal Circuit opinions issued between 2004 and 2018, we find that opinion specialization is a robust part of the Federal Circuit’s practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Magazine of the American Inns of Court
    SPECIAL EDITION 2017 ® The Bencher® THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN INNS OF COURT 25 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY American Inns of Court www.innsofcourt.org 2 American Inns of Court ◆ www.innsofcourt.org The Bencher ◆ Special Edition 2017 FROM THE PRESIDENT Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart he American Inns of Court enjoys a storied a collaboration that later came to be known as history of growth and expansion, having, the Linn Inn Alliance. Indeed, during our 2011 T since its inception in 1980, become one of Celebration of Excellence, Senior U.S. District the largest organizations of legal professionals in Judge Richard Linn was recognized with the A. the country. Our organization’s notable history is Sherman Christensen Award for serving as the enriched by the creation and expansion of intellec- primary catalyst for intellectual property Inn tual property (IP) focused Inns, which have dedicated growth through the United States and elsewhere. themselves to bringing the Inns of Court experi- The creation of this specialty Inn alliance—the ence to the entire intellectual property community. first of its kind—helped foster the largely collegial The growth, development, and increasing focus on nature of the ever-growing patent bar and localize intellectual property law has a historical genesis. To an inherently national practice. Today, almost ten encourage innovation and investment in valuable years since the inception of the Linn Inn Alliance, creations, the founding fathers enshrined protec- there are more than 25 IP-focused Inns dedicated to tions for intellectual property in Article I, Section 8 of improving the American Inns of Court experience the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium on the Law & Economics of Marijuana Legalization
    JUDICIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ATTORNEYS GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM Symposium on the Law & Economics of Marijuana Legalization Sunday, October 6 — Tuesday, October 8, 2019 | Denver, CO AGENDA SUNDAY, OCTOBER 6 All sessions held at the Westin Denver Downtown, Denver, CO 3:00 – 6:00 pm Registration, Lobby 6:00 – 7:30 pm Welcome Reception, Augusta Room MONDAY, OCTOBER 7 All sessions held in the Confluence Ballroom 7:00 – 7:55 am Breakfast, Platte River Room 8:00 – 8:05 am Welcome Stuart Nincehelser, Director, Attorneys General Education Program and Henry G. Manne Program, Law & Economics Center, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Paula Witt, Director, Judicial Education Program, Law & Economics Center George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School 8:05 – 9:00 am Lecture: Fundamentals of the Marijuana Economy Sean O'Connor, Professor of Law and Executive Director, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School 9:15 – 10:45 am Panel 1: Consumer Protection in a Quasi-Legal Market Douglas A. Berman, Newton D. Baker, Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law Kathy Hoffman, Policy and Rules Coordinator, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board Sandy Lynskey, Of Counsel, Mac Murray & Shuster LLP Yoko Miyashita, General Counsel, Leafly Moderator: Sean O'Connor Reading Assignments: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research, (Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2017). Nate Seltenrich, “Cannabis Contaminants: Regulating Solvents, Microbes, and Metals in Legal Weed,” Environmental Health Perspectives 127, no.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]
  • A Random Walk: the Federal Circuit's 2010 Government Contract Decisions
    American University Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 4 Article 4 2011 A Random Walk: The edeF ral Circuit's 2010 Government Contract Decisions Steven L. Schooner Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Government Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Schooner, Steven L. (2011) "A Random Walk: The eF deral Circuit's 2010 Government Contract Decisions," American University Law Review: Vol. 60: Iss. 4, Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss4/4 This Area Summary 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]. A Random Walk: The edeF ral Circuit's 2010 Government Contract Decisions This area summary is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss4/4 A RANDOM WALK: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S 2010 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS DECISIONS ∗ STEVEN L. SCHOONER TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................1067 I. Specialization: Some Perspective ...........................................1069 A. Government Contracts Specialization: An Empirical Snapshot ............................................................................1069
    [Show full text]