scholarly journals Legal Scholarship and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: An Empirical Study of a National Circuit

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Schwartz ◽  
Lee Petherbridge
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Circuit

Sperry Corp. v. United States

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-90
Author(s):  
Rose Cecile Chan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Circuit

Plaintiffs, Sperry Corp. and Sperry World Trade Inc. (Sperry), received an award from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). Upon payment of the award, the United States deducted 2 percent of the total amount pursuant to a directive license issued by the Secretary of the Treasury regarding recovered claims by U.S. nationals against Iran. When plaintiffs challenged the authority of the Treasury to make the deduction and the United States Claims Court announced a preliminary ruling that concurred with plaintiffs’ position, the Executive persuaded Congress to approve legislation authorizing specified percentages to be deducted by the United States from Tribunal awards to U.S. citizens. Responding to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the newly enacted statute, the United States Claims Court dismissed the suit and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (per Meyer, J.) reversed and held: that the deduction constitutes a taking without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In September 1988, the United States filed notice of appeal with the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals It’s Not So Obvious

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 729-750
Author(s):  
Samuel Reger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Patent Claim ◽  
Specific Approach ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Circuit

Currently, the United States Supreme Court requires a fact-specific approach to determine whether a patent claim is eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even though, traditionally, this has been considered a question of law. However, recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit introduced the “manifestly evident” standard. The court held that when it is not manifestly evident that a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, then that claim must be deemed patent-eligible subject matter. This Comment suggests that the manifestly evident standard, or one similar to it, will reduce litigation costs. This is because, under the current fact-specific requirements, it may become commonplace for courts to engage in formal claim construction, a costly pre-trial process, to decide whether these requirements are met. But under the manifestly evident standard, courts and litigants will be able to quickly move past the often confusing section 101 to the later sections of the Patent Act, which courts are better prepared to confront.

scholarly journals Federal Circuit Addresses Damages in the Hatch-Waxman Context

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D'Amore
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Expiration ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Pediatric Exclusivity

Morrison Foerster Client Alert, April 14, 2015On April 7, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., No. 2014-1221, affirming an award of a reasonable royalty of 50% in a case arising from the Hatch-Waxman Act. While largely affirming a damages award of over $70 million, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s award of damages during the period of pediatric exclusivity that AstraZeneca’s product held after patent expiration.

scholarly journals Dolly and Alice

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Somatic Cells ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter ◽  
Federal Circuit

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re Roslin Institute, rejecting patent claims to mammals cloned from somatic cells, was rendered about a month before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The Alice opinion explicitly sets out the standard for determining whether an invention falls within statutory patentable subject matter. Thus one is thus left to wonder what the Roslin opinion might have looked like had it been decided only a few weeks later, after the Alice decision was published, with the benefit of the Supreme Court's further direction on patentable subject matter. In this essay I explore whether in hindsight the Alice standard might have dictated a different outcome in Roslin, suggesting how the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Alice might apply to a "products of nature" analysis for cloned mammals. Drawing on that analysis, I then use the Roslin case as a vehicle to highlight certain issues with the Supreme Court's current subject matter jurisprudence as applied to biotechnology. By juxtaposing Dolly with Alice, it becomes clear that the Supreme Court has revivified a number of dormant biotechnology patent problems in the guise of subject matter analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document