Showing archive for: “Supreme Court”
Supreme Court Turns Again to Patent Cases, Against the Backdrop of a Decline in American Patent Protection that Threatens Future U.S. Innovation and International Competitiveness
On November 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will turn once again to patent law, hearing cases addressing the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) “inter partes” review (Oil States Energy v. Greene), and whether PTAB must issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner in an inter partes ... Supreme Court Turns Again to Patent Cases, Against the Backdrop of a Decline in American Patent Protection that Threatens Future U.S. Innovation and International Competitiveness
Dave Haddock Remembers Fred McChesney
David Haddock is Professor of Law and Professor of Economics at Northwestern University and a Senior Fellow Emeritus at PERC. The day Fred McChesney departed this life, the world lost an intelligent, enthusiastic, and intellectually rigorous scholar of law & economics. A great many of us also lost one of our most trusted and generous ... Dave Haddock Remembers Fred McChesney
ICLE urges Supreme Court to review DC Circuit decision in Open Internet Order case
Today the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the DC Circuit’s 2016 decision upholding the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. The brief was authored by Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director of ICLE, and Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska ... ICLE urges Supreme Court to review DC Circuit decision in Open Internet Order case
Inter Partes Review Jeopardizes the Social Contract between Drug Makers and Patients
It’s been six weeks since drug maker Allergan announced that it had assigned to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe the patents on Restasis, an Allergan drug challenged both in IPR proceedings and in Hatch-Waxman proceedings in federal district court. The unorthodox agreement was intended to shield the patents from IPR proceedings (and thus restrict the ... Inter Partes Review Jeopardizes the Social Contract between Drug Makers and Patients
The Supreme Court Misses the Mark in Murr v. Wisconsin – It’s High Time to Reconcile Regulatory and Physical Takings Law
Background: The Murr v. Wisconsin Case On June 23, in a 5-3 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined; Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals’ ruling that two waterfront lots should be treated as ... The Supreme Court Misses the Mark in Murr v. Wisconsin – It’s High Time to Reconcile Regulatory and Physical Takings Law
The Demise of Lanham Act Trademark Disparagement Limitations Promotes Sound Free Market Economic Principles
Background On June 19, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case) affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the Lanham Act’s “disparagement clause” is unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The Patent and Trademark Office denied the Slants’ (an Asian rock group) federal trademark registration, ... The Demise of Lanham Act Trademark Disparagement Limitations Promotes Sound Free Market Economic Principles
Judge Gorsuch’s Distinguished Antitrust Record
Overview A?merica’s antitrust laws have long held a special status in the ?federal statutory hierarchy. The Supreme Court of the United States, for example, famously stated that the “[a]ntitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise.” Thus, when considering the qualifications of a nominee to the ... Judge Gorsuch’s Distinguished Antitrust Record
Supreme Court’s Samsung v. Apple Decision and the Status of Design Patents
On December 6 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its much anticipated decision in Samsung Electronic Co. v. Apple Inc. The opinion deferred for another day clarification of key policy questions raised by the design patent system. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reversed and remanded a Federal Circuit decision upholding a $399 ... Supreme Court’s Samsung v. Apple Decision and the Status of Design Patents
The FTC’s PAE Study Recommendations: Case Not Proven
On October 6, 2016, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study (PAE Study), its much-anticipated report on patent assertion entity (PAE) activity. The PAE Study defined PAEs as follows: Patent assertion entities (PAEs) are businesses that acquire patents from third parties and seek to generate revenue by asserting ... The FTC’s PAE Study Recommendations: Case Not Proven
Global Antitrust Institute’s Comments on Draft DOJ-FTC IP Guidelines are on the Mark
The Global Antitrust Institute (GAI) at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School released today a set of comments on the joint U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Federal Trade Commission (FTC) August 12 Proposed Update to their 1995 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (Proposed Update). As has been the case with ... Global Antitrust Institute’s Comments on Draft DOJ-FTC IP Guidelines are on the Mark
Global Antitrust Institute Propounds Recommendations for Reform of Japan’s Administrative Surcharge System
On August 6, the Global Antitrust Institute (the GAI, a division of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University) submitted a filing (GAI filing or filing) in response to the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s (JFTC’s) consultation on reforms to the Japanese system of administrative surcharges assessed for competition law violations (see here for ... Global Antitrust Institute Propounds Recommendations for Reform of Japan’s Administrative Surcharge System
The Supreme Court Should Reassert the Importance of Procedural Gatekeeper Rules to Deter Antitrust Litigation Excesses
Background In addition to reforming substantive antitrust doctrine, the Supreme Court in recent decades succeeded in curbing the unwarranted costs of antitrust litigation by erecting new procedural barriers to highly questionable antitrust suits. It did this principally through three key “gatekeeper” decisions, Monsanto (1984), Matsushita (1986), and Twombly (2007). Prior to those holdings, bare allegations ... The Supreme Court Should Reassert the Importance of Procedural Gatekeeper Rules to Deter Antitrust Litigation Excesses
