BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ADMINISTRATIVE, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PROFESSORS URGING REVERSAL AND SUPPORTING PETITIONERS In 19-1434 & 19-1452 (U.S. Supreme Court)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Sarnoff ◽  
Alan B. Morrison ◽  
Robert L. Glicksman ◽  
Dmitry Karshtedt ◽  
Mark A. Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law Professors

Summary of Results

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Networked Economy

The persuasive force of the accepted account’s property logic has driven antitrust and intellectual property law jurisprudence for at least the past three decades. It has been through the theory of trademark ownership and the commercial strategy of branding that these laws led the courts to comprehend markets as fundamentally bifurcated—as operating according to discrete types of interbrand and intrabrand competition—a division that had an effect far beyond the confines of trademark law and resonates today in the way government agencies and courts evaluate the emerging challenges of the networked economy along the previously introduced distinction between intertype and intratype competition. While the government in its appeal to the Supreme Court in ...

Brief of International Intellectual Property Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party - Ericsson v. Samsung

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge L. Contreras ◽  
Ann Bartow ◽  
Michael A. Carrier ◽  
Christa Laser ◽  
Joshua D. Sarnoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law Professors

scholarly journals Which Kraft of Statutory Interpretation? A Supreme Court of Canada Trilogy on Intellectual Property Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cameron J. Hutchison
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Law Making

The techniques used by courts to interpret statutes can be characterized as inconsistent, and at times, excessive. Current methodologies of statutory interpretation often reflect deeply normative views about the appropriate institutional role of the legislative and judicial branches of law-making, but this characterization of the debate is misleading. Rather, the problem lies with properly discerning legislative meaning and intent in full awareness of the limitations and possibilities of statutes as communicative devices. The author suggests a new methodology of statutory interpretation, whereby courts analogize the facts before them with certain paradigm cases. This methodology serves to constrain judicial discretion and enables courts to fill gaps in legislation in connection with novel cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document