Search

Since Chinese courts issued a spate of anti-suit injunctions ("ASIs") in licensing disputes between holders of standard-essential patents ("SEPs") and implementers, there have been growing concerns about the weaponization of ASIs in the global SEP licensing battles on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms. This Essay will discuss how the aggressive use of ASIs by Chinese courts, along with their assertion of jurisdiction to set global licensing rates at abnormally low levels, contributes to this concern. It is not helpful, however, to cast the ASIs in purely geopolitical terms. More than anything else, ASIs are being used to gain an advantage in licensing negotiations, and they may perversely play a positive role in facilitating the settlement of FRAND disputes. Instead of trying to curb the use of ASIs per se, more attention needs to be paid to solving the forum shopping problem in global FRAND litigation that leads to the issuance of ASIs in the first place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is unique. Unlike the jurisdiction of all other U.S. courts of appeals, the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is defined not by its geographical boundaries, but rather by the subject matter of the original claims and compulsory counterclaims. The court has appellate jurisdiction over final decisions from all U.S. district courts if a plaintiff's claim or a party's counterclaim arises under the patent laws. From this unusual jurisdictional grant, the Federal Circuit has concluded that, as a policy matter, it should apply and develop its own law only if the legal issue pertains to patent law. For all other legal issues, the Federal Circuit defers to the law of the court of appeals in which the case originated--i.e., it applies the procedural law and the non-patent substantive law of the regional circuits. This Article undertakes a thorough evaluation of the Federal Circuit's choice-of-law rule. It examines how the rule compares against the congressional objectives reflected in the court's enabling statute as well as against possible alternative rules. In addition, it considers how the court's rule causes the court to depart from the trans-substantivity principle of procedural law and a related principle of equity in a nontransparent manner, and, in doing so, engage in substantive lawmaking that may be beyond the court's authority. Finally, this Article contemplates solutions beyond a mere change in the court's choice-of-law rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The doctrine of forum non conveniens was developed as a pragmatic response to an evolving judicial economy. This sense of pragmatism has continued to define application of the doctrine in the United States. Yet, in the international context, the Supreme Court last outlined the contours offorum non conveniens analysis in 1981 but, in the decades since, technological advancement has significantly altered the litigation playing field. For example, discovery is less burdensome now that documents are digitally transferable. And, even if relevant evidence isn't digitizable, shipping costs have decreased significantly. Echoing these facts, critics argue forum non conveniens has lost the pragmatism that once defined the doctrine. The doctrine of forum non conveniens was developed as a pragmatic response to an evolving judicial economy. This sense of pragmatism has continued to define application of the doctrine in the United States. Yet, in the international context, the Supreme Court last outlined the contours offorum non conveniens analysis in 1981 but, in the decades since, technological advancement has significantly altered the litigation playing field. For example, discovery is less burdensome now that documents are digitally transferable. And, even if relevant evidence isn't digitizable, shipping costs have decreased significantly. Echoing these facts, critics argue forum non conveniens has lost the pragmatism that once defined the doctrine. This Comment examines how United States district courts make forum non conveniens decisions in cases involving foreign plaintiffs and domestic defendants. Specifically, by examining published forum non conveniens opinions, this comment hopes to shed light on the importance of globalization when courts make a forum non conveniens ruling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents information on developments in class action cases involving consumer finance in the U.S. It discusses a debate in the district courts on whether courts may exercise jurisdiction over a nationwide class action asserting state-law claims against a nonresident defendant, and a court ruling stating that the pendency of a class action suit tolls the statute of limitations applicable to the indivial claims of members of a putative class.

The article discusses the Minnesota Supreme Court's adoption of a rule governing the recognition and enforcement of tribal court orders and judgments in the state's district courts, and it mentions judicial deference and the sovereignty and jurisdiction of tribal courts. According to the article, state legislatures in America should amend their state constitutions to give full faith and credit to tribal court orders.

The article presents practical advice for American attorneys on how to keep litigation matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after the court issues jurisdictional questions, and it mentions concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction. America's Constitution is addressed, along with U.S. federal district courts' original jurisdiction over civil actions. Legal complaints, diversity jurisdiction, and the removal of litigation to another court are assessed.

The history o f court reporting o f the federal lower judiciary dates from the early days of the Republic. Mr. Fishman helps to document that history by reviewing the publication o f the reports for the Third Circuit (circuit and district courts) covering the nominative reports from the late-eighteenth to the late-nineteenth century, before their republication in Federal Cases by West Publishing Company. A bibliography is appended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the U.S. Fourth Circuit court should have jurisdiction to review the vessel's owner's constitutional claims in its "Angelex Ltd. v. United States" case. Topics discussed include abuse of discretion by federal agencies; jurisdiction of district court over the agencies' actions; and the constitutional claims of the firm owner in the case.

The article discusses the "boilerplate" forum-selection clauses which are often contained in contracts as of February 2014. According to the article, mandatory forum-selection clauses typically designate an exclusive venue or jurisdiction for contract-related litigation matters. It states that such clauses can preclude lawsuits from proceeding in the U.S. federal district court system. Various decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit are examined.

This article examines the conditions under which Congress passes jurisdiction-granting legislation, which expands the discretion of the federal district courts by designating them as policy venues. This project extends existing research that has demonstrated that Congress manipulates the parameters of jurisdiction by examining how Congress routinely engages in this activity. I construct and evaluate a comprehensive data set of laws in which Congress grants jurisdiction to the district courts for the period between 1949-2006 (81st-109th Congress). I consider the effect of separation-of-powers and ideological distance on the decision to grant jurisdiction. The results demonstrate that both separation-of-powers and ideological concerns influence such decisions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act (JVCA) of 2011. Topics discussed include transferring of case to any district as per the convenience of parties and witnesses, no uniformity of district courts, and analyzing how the new addition to the statute affects the forum selection clause in contracts.

The article focuses on the split of the U.S. district court and presents an argument in favor of the plain language of the forum-defendant rule to permit pre-service removal. It discusses the information related to the history of the absurd-result principle, the general removal doctrine, and general principles of statutory interpretation. It mentions that the general removal doctrine is developed under the Judiciary Act of 1789 which seeks to requirements of original diversity jurisdiction. It mentions that the above argument for the pre-service is an appropriate solution for resolving the district court split.

The article offers information on regulations issued by the U.S. Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and discusses the court case United States v Any and All Radio Station Transmission Equipment, presented in the U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. It analyzes the clauses mentioned in the legislation regarding jurisdiction of district courts in making judgments in the case.

The first legal determination of wrongful execution in the United States may very well be in the making in Texas. One of the state's district courts is in the midst of investigating whether Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004, was actually innocent. The court's investigation has been interrupted by objections from Texas prosecutors, but if the court proceeds, this may very well become a bona fide case of wrongful execution. Texas, just like other jurisdictions, is ill equipped to provide any relief for such an egregious wrong, however. This Article identifies the difficulties that the heirs, families, and friends of wrongfully executed individ-uals face in attempting to obtain compensation for this xurong. The Article highlights that statutory compensation schemes overlook the issue of wrongful exe-cution and the greater injustice it entails and urges that the statutes be amended in light of this grievous wrong that has come to the fore of American criminal jus-tice systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the constitutional issues and the development of bankruptcy court jurisdiction. It discusses a jurisdictional scheme in bankruptcy and offers solutions to the jurisdictional quandary. It discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Stern v. Marshall, involving the issues related to the constitutionality of bankruptcy court jurisdiction. It informs that the opinion in the case of Stern has helped in the modification of the standards of districts courts.

The article focuses on the function of courts in relieving the woes of naturalization applicants in the U.S. It offers analysis on the conflicting opinions among courts as to the capability of 8 U.S.C. §1447 (b) to offer exclusive jurisdiction to the district court over pending naturalization applications as well as the possibility of the district courts and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to share jurisdiction over § 1447(b) actions. It addresses court decisions to send the matter back to USCIS or settle the application.

Generally speaking, the Supreme Court of the United States is a tribunal with the final say on "what the law is." But the desirability of the Supreme Court's acting as "final law sayer" is questionable in patent law, where the Court primarily reviews the work of the Federal Circuit, a comparatively expert body having virtually exclusive jurisdiction over initial appeals. Nonetheless, in recent years, the Supreme Court has spoken repeatedly and forcefully on questions of substantive patent law. I argue that such Supreme Court activity is best justified and conceived not as directed toward final law saying, but instead as involving limited interventions to stimulate new or renewed judicial examination of important legal questions. Centralized appellate review in the Federal Circuit makes patent law unusually susceptible to doctrinal ossification. By engaging in periodic merits review of patent law doctrines that the Federal Circuit may have locked into place either too quickly or for too long, the Supreme Court can help initiate escapes from suboptimal legal equilibria. But the Court's competence is limited. Consequently, when intervening in substantive patent law, the Court should generally leave primary responsibility for developing precise legal formulas to the Patent and Trademark Office, district courts, and the Federal Circuit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the editor discusses several topics related to legal profession. Topics discussed include Australian High Court's decision in case Parker v. The Queen, statutes of limitation and New South Wales Court of Appeal Decisions in case Watson v. Foxman of 1995. Other topics include Beaverton, Oregon Dstrict Court case Crouch v. Hooper of 1852 and judicial sittings in suburban cities.

The article reports on the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the case, Betty E. Vaden versus Discover Bank on March 9, 2009. The court ruled that district courts are authorized to look through for federal question jurisdiction to hear a motion to compel arbitration. It is held that district courts may not find out that they have jurisdiction on the basis of a state law counterclaim. Furthermore, it is concluded that save for arbitration agreement directs the courts to consider if they would have jurisdiction over a dispute.

The article discusses a court case regarding whether a U.S. district court has jurisdiction to rule on matter related to a foreign arbitration. The Fifth Circuit court was presented with an appeal to an arbitration between Petrec, a subsidiary of oil company Gulf Petro, and the oil exploration company Nigerian National Petroleum (NNP) Corp. regarding the salvaging of slop oil. The case had been decided in NNP's favor, leading Petrec to appeal to a Texas court which ruled that the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards gave it no jurisdiction to rule on the case. The Fifth Circuit court upheld the decision.