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 article focuses on the challenges of multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings in the U.S. It informs on growth of and challenges posed by MDLs in federal district courts; enactment of Multidistrict Litigation Act of 1968 for addressing the same; and Professor Alexandra D. Lahav's research focusing on procedural justice and the limits of due process in aggregate litigation.

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 article discusses America's spoliation of evidence doctrine in relation to electronically stored information (ESI), pre-trial discovery processes, and a December 2015 amendment to Rule 37(E) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. American electronic discovery (e-discovery) is addressed, along with the nation's district courts and the case Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC which deals with a duty to preserve evidence. Intentional spoliation is assessed.

The article discusses various developments involving American criminal sentencing law and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2005 case United States v. Booker which deals with the Sixth Amendment to the nation's Constitution and an enhanced sentence based on a judge's determination of a fact that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. District courts in Florida and U.S. Probation Office investigation reports are examined.

The article focuses on redefining "other property" under the economic loss doctrine with reference to the court case CHMM, LLC v. Freeman Marine Equipment, Inc. (Freeman). Topics include buyer company CHMM LLC stated to have brought several products liability claims against Freeman seeking to recover the loss sustained from the failure of the door, and the U.S. district court stated to have decided that the CHMM could not bring such an action in tort and dismissed the claims.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1938 diversity jurisdiction case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (Erie) in relation to a debate about whether a U.S. federal district court that is hearing a case under its diversity jurisdiction is required to use the preliminary injunction standard that would be applied by a court of general civil jurisdiction where the federal court is located. American civil procedure, forum shopping, and legal presumptions are assessed.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California Mathew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC. regarding the antitrust law. It mentions that price discrimination claims against the automobile dealer Chrysler Group LLC. It mentions that the price reductions in violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson Patman Act (RPA).

This Article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of intellectual property ("IP") litigation in U.S. federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent, and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of the records of more than 190,000 cases filed in federal courts and examines the subject matter, geographical, and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades. This Article analyzes changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution. The key findings of this Article stem from an attempt to understand long-term patterns in the filing data as well as short-term deviations from various trends. This data-driven approach has yielded insights in relation to such diverse topics as Internet filesharing litigation, the true impact of patent trolls on the level of patent litigation, and the extent of forum shopping and forum selling patent litigation. Just as importantly, this Article lays the foundation for planning and evaluating future empirical studies of IP litigation with a narrower focus. Many of the results and conclusions herein demonstrate the dangers of basing empirical conclusions on narrow slices of data from selected regions or selected time periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case comment analyses the appropriateness of the 60/40 written/oral weighting of the promotional exams challenged by Briscoe. The plaintiff claimed that the oral exam had less disparate impact on African Americans, was a better way to access candidates' ability and hence should be weighted more. The comment shows that when more weight is given to the oral exam, the number of African American promotions 'increases', but the number of Hispanic promotions and the total number of minority promotions 'decreases'. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that for most of the written/oral weightings, including the one advocated by the plaintiff, the number of African Americans who would be promoted to lieutenant remains the same, supporting district court's conclusion that the weighting used by the City did not have disparate impact on African Americans 'as a race'. In addition, the comment illustrates that even though the oral exam had less disparate impact on African Americans, it had 'more' disparity on Hispanics. Considering minority candidates as a whole group, the disparities of the oral and the written exams were about the same. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont case Jimmo v. Sebelius (Jimmo) which deals with local coverage determinations (LCDs) regarding Medicare health insurance coverage, and it mentions the potential impact that a settlement in the Jimmo case might have the medical care that is provided to minimally conscious state (MCS) patients and people with severe brain injuries. Improvement and maintenance medical treatment standards are also assessed.

The article discusses the decisions of the several court cases in the Utah. Topics discussed include decision of the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in case Ortiz v. United States ex ret. Evans Army Cmty. Hosp. related to compensation for injuries, decision of the district court in case Barneck v. Utah Dep't of Transp. related to negligence and wrongful death and decision of the Utah Court of Appeals in case State v. Ludlow related to theft.

The article discusses the court case U.S. v. Mcfadden. Topics include the U.S. Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, denied a rehearing, and construction worker Stephen McFadden subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court having granted McFadden certiorari on January 16, 2015 to determine whether to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue.

President Obama's 2013 veto of a US International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order, issued to address Apple Inc.'s infringement of a patent owned by Samsung, thrust the ITC's public interest inquiry into the spotlight. Historically, however, these factors rarely weighed against a remedy at the ITC. Likewise, US district courts have rarely declined to issue a permanent injunction after finding a patent valid and infringed due solely to the public interest factor--the last of the four factors that the Supreme Court put in place in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. More recent decisions addressing the public interest in both forums, however, show a willingness by the adjudicators to weigh both traditional public interest issues, such as health and well-being, and non-traditional arguments, such as public reliance and environmental concerns, against a patent owner's right to exclude. In this Article, we examine some of the successful traditional and non-traditional public interest arguments, both at the ITC and in US district courts. From this analysis, the Article outlines how parties involved in high-stakes patent litigation in either forum can craft public interest arguments to combat the threat of a permanent injunction or an ITC exclusion order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses appellate practices in Florida in relation to the elements that make a legal case or issue one of exceptional importance, and it mentions the court rules which limit the legal matters which can be adjudicated by Florida's district courts of appeal (DCA). The attitudes of DCA judges are mentioned, along with examinations of DCA orders denying parties' motions for rehearing en banc. Several legal cases and Florida's Rules of Appellate Procedure are examined.

The article compares the differences in the use of the all writs authority that is granted to federal district courts and bankruptcy courts. Topics discussed include use of Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code for resolving conflict under the principles of equity and bankruptcy law, a bankruptcy courts cased In re Aldan Industries, Inc. related to the arbitration and the U.S. Supreme Court case Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bailey related to release of nondebtors from claims.

One of the greatest challenges facing patent holders is the enforcement of their rights against foreign (non-US) infringers. Jurisdictional rules can prevent patent holders from filing patent infringement suits where they have the greatest likelihood of success in enforcement, such as where the infringer is located, has its seat, or holds its assets. Instead, patent holders must file lawsuits in the country where the infringed patent was issued. But filing a patent lawsuit in a US court against a non-US infringer may be subject to various difficulties associated with the fact that US substantive patent law (particularly as regards its territorial scope) and conflict of laws rules are not always compatible and interoperable with the conflict of laws rules of other countries. Such insufficient compatibility and interoperability can lead to US judgments not being enforceable outside the United States. In the Hague Conference's Judgments Project, which the Conference relaunched in 2012, the United States has an opportunity to negotiate internationally-uniform conflict of laws rules to improve cross-border litigation, including cross-border patent litigation. This Article provides data on cross-border patent litigation that can be used to show the extent of the cross-border patent litigation problem and assist in assessing the appropriate degree of US involvement in the Judgments Project. The Article updates the author's earlier research on cross-border aspects of patent litigation, contributes to the rapidly growing body of empirical literature on patent litigation (including the literature on the "patent troll" phenomenon), and enriches the literature on foreign litigants in patent disputes and on transnational litigation in general (both of which suffer from a dearth of statistical data). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technological standards allow manufacturers and consumers to rely upon these agreed-upon basic systems to facilitate sales and further invention. However, where these standards involved patented technology, the process of standard-setting raises many concerns at the intersection of antitrust and patent law. As patent holders advocate for their patents to become part of technological standards, how should courts police this activity to prevent patent holdup and other anti-competitive practices? This Note explores the differing approaches to remedies employed by the United States International Trade Commission and the United States District Courts where standard-essential patents are infringed. This Note further proposes that both adjudicative bodies should utilize the public policy prongs of their respective analyses to deny injunctive relief where an entity has previously pledged to license its standard-essential patent and fails to undergo appropriate negotiations prior to bringing a patent infringement suit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The boundaries of federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) are blurring, as district courts seek innovative ways tofacilitate global settlements to resolve multijurisdictional, multidimensional, national mass torts. The techniques emerging from the district courts have mostly evaded appellate review and received little scholarly attention, but they raise important challenges to traditional understandings of the nature of MDL and complex litigation. This Article argues that factually similar cases proceeding in multiple court systems in mass tort disputes create a "federalism problem" for global settlements: global settlements typically benefit from oversight by a single judge, but often there is no single judge who can exercise control over all the parties who might participate in such a settlement. This Article identifies a trend emerging in MDL settlements that attempts to solve the federalism problem by extending the MDL court's authority. In the settlement phase, some MDL judges have begun experimenting with the exercise of power over state litigants (and even individuals who made private claims but never filed suit in any court), in order to facilitate global settlements. In this situation, the "case" appears to encompass the national mass tort settlement itself. This Article concludes that the aggregative trend toward transjurisdictional settlement authority in MDL has no basis in the MDL statute. The emerging practice submerges the federalism problem into the settlement agreement without regard to the inherent limitations on the federal court's structural power, but the federalism problem remains unsolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the dispersal of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 generated a mass of litigation. To organize and manage this complex mass, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana created "pleading bundles," which consolidated similar cases, and provided that each bundle must file a single complaint on behalf of the entire group. In Center for Biological Diversity v. BP America Production Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of most of the Center for Biological Diversity's claims on the grounds of mootness, and further concluded that the district court was within its discretion when placing the Center's case into a pleading bundle that did not recognize all of the Center's claims. This Comment argues that the district court's consolidation technique prejudiced the Center and was inappropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On March 14, 2013, in Stewart v. Waco Independent School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff was not required to administratively exhaust her Rehabilitation Act claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In doing so, the Fifth Circuit created a precedent that could potentially flood court dockets and that does not make use of the administrative safeguards statutorily in place. This Comment argues that, on remand, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas should apply a relief-centered approach to ultimately find that the plaintiff was required to exhaust her administrative remedies under the IDEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's analysis and holdings of the three major issues in the court case Al Shimari v. CACI International Inc. and the use of the Ohio choice of law provisions and the court's improper analysis of Iraqi law.

The article discusses the U.S. district court's case Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. regarding the condition that patent owners would charge licensees reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalties for standards-essential patents (SEPs). Topics include use of RAND in resolving the breach of contract claim, determination of RAND rates for other patents required for the Wi-Fi standard, and adoption of the standard by deterring hold-up and royalty stacking.

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.

The article focuses on the violation of the Hancock Amendment by the storm user charge implemented by the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) without voter approval with reference to several court cases filed by the ratepayers against MSD. Topics discussed include trial court's judgment in the court case Zweig v. the MSD, waiver of jury trial in guarantee in the court case Midland Property Partners LLC v. Watkins and ban on passage of retrospective laws in the Missouri Constitution.

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, the District Court for the Southern District ofNew York ruled that the first sale doctrine does not apply when consumers resell copyrighted goods by digital distribution, even if they use 'forward-and-delete" software that ensures that the seller's copy is deleted during the transaction. This ruling hinged on the court's interpretation of the word "particular" in § 109 of the Copyright Act. The court reasoned that when copyrighted music is downloaded, the specific location on the disk to which it is downloaded is a "phonorecord". According to the court, a digital copy is made anywhere else constitutes a reproduction for the purposes of copyright infringement. Because it is impossible for that physical piece of the disk to be transferred via digital transmission, and every digital transmission thus necessarily requires a reproduction, there can be no first sale protection for the distribution of digital goods. Because of the metaphysical differences between physical and digital media, this comment argues that the fair use doctrine cannot be applied in a media-neutral fashion. Digital goods cannot be moved from place to place in the same way that physical goods can be moved, even though the use of forward-and-delete technology (such as the kind ReDigi utilizes) can cause the functional result to be the same: one copy before the transmission, one copy after the transmission. The court's strict demand that the physical substrate where a copyrighted work is fixed must remain identical in order to be considered the same "particular"c opy (and thus eligible for first sale protection) is at odds with earlier courts' rulings that repaired and restored works are eligible for first sale protection. The court's demand is also at odds with its own conclusion that iPods and other mobile devices containing music can be legally resold. These inconsistencies demonstrate that the phrase "particular copy or phonorecord" in 17 U.S.C. § 109 (which codifes the first sale doctrine) makes the statute unable to account for digital media and thus unable to apply in a media-neutralf ashion. A specific carve-out for digital media is necessary for the law to keep up with the development of technology. Such a change is preferable because media-neutral application of the first sale doctrine permits a secondary market for digital goods to exist, which better serves both ends of copyright-the instrumental goal of rewarding authors and the ultimate goal of providing the public access to creative works by promoting economic efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the court case Apple v. Samsung in which a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that electronic products firm Samsung infringed on numerous patents of consumer electronics maker and ordered the foreign company to pay the damages. Topics include the idea of blue ribbon jury panels not immune from criticism and the implementation of a system that precludes the use of a jury stated to raise a constitutional issue.

In the wake of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the federal district courts split over whether to apply Twombly's plausibility standard to the pleading of affirmative defenses. Initially, a majority of district courts extended Twombly to defense pleadings, but recently the courts that have declined to extend the plausibility standard have gained majority status. This Note provides a comprehensive analysis of each side of the plausibility split, identifying several hidden assumptions motivating the district courts' decisions. Drawing from its analysis of the two opposing positions, this Note responds to the courts that have applied plausibility pleading to affirmative defenses by identifying several fundamental flaws in their appeals to tradition, policy, and the text of Rule 8. Due to misguided reliance on historical pleading practices, an imprecise reading of Twombly, and an overestimation of the availability of discovery for unpled or stricken affirmative defenses, these courts fail to recognize that extending plausibility pleading beyond the complaint imposes an asymmetrical and unfairly onerous burden on defendants. This Note concludes that the courts that extend Twombly to affirmative defenses do so in violation of both the canons of statutory construction and the principles of the Rules Enabling Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case People v. Diaz filed in the Supreme Court of New York in Bronx County, New York regarding admissibility of hospital records in court cases and the defendant's right to confrontation. Topics discussed include dismissal of habeas corpus petition by defendant Enrique Diaz by the District Court and 440 motion on Sixth Amendment, claim made by Diaz regarding falsification of hospital records and admissibility of records under business records exception.

In Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. 713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and found the asserted patent claims obvious in view of the cited prior art. Neither the Federal Circuit nor the District Court addressed the issue of commercial success despite the fact that the patentee had submitted evidence of commercial success in its opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (but not in support of its own motion for summary judgment). This case report presents the decision of the District Court, the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Chaco Nation of the Chaco Indian Reservation v. Edward Williamson. It says that the Chaco Nation filed an appeal to the court's judgment involving the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The district court ruled that due to lacking evidence, Harper Man's remains could not be considered as Native American according to the implication of NAGPRA.

In Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Caraco Pharma. Labs., Ltd. et al., 688 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of the injunction issued by the District Court in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S et al. (U.S. 2012). The Federal Circuit found that the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing its injunction and modified the injunction accordingly. This case report presents the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed those issues. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses a court case of Lewis v. Alexander that was decided by the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and which the court stroked down of the decisions made by the U.S. district court based on a statute of Pennsylvania related to the restrictions imposed on the use of limited trust retention of postmortem accounts and pooled special needs trust accounts (PSNT) to 50 percent. The issues related to declaratory and injunctive relief in case of putative class action filed by several individuals are discussed. The challenges related to the comparability argument with reference to the U.S. Medicaid statutes are also discussed.

The article discusses a court case wherein Rosetta Stone Ltd. filed a suit against Google Inc. in the U. S. District Court claiming direct trademark infringement. It states that the company argued that Google Inc.'s policy created confusion among their customers and misled them into purchasing counterfeit Rosetta Stone software. It further states that the court examined the case and held that Google Inc. used fair trademark laws.

The article presents a court case of In re Adoption of Baby E.Z. wherein the baby Emma was taken by strangers to Utah after her birth in Virginia. The baby was adopted based on the Utah law. The real father filed motions to intervene the adoption proceeding in the Utah district court. The father further appealed to Utah Supreme Court based on the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. A focus is on the arguments in the courts of Utah and Virginia based on this case.

The article presents information on the treatment of pretrial defendants suffering with serious mental illness and using antipsychotic medication in the U.S. The administrative hearing related to the recent trials of Harper v. Washington, United States v. Loughner and Riggins v. Nevada as judged by the district courts of the U.S. are discussed. The role of the Institutions for Mental Disease and determining the current medication regime is considered. The issues related to substantive and procedural due process based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is also discussed.

The article discusses a court case of Womack v. Orchids Paper Products Co. 401(k) Savings Plan as decided by the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Oklahoma based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The breach of fiduciary duty, regulation of financial markets and investor protection are discussed. The importance of trust relationships, issues related to suspicion in public and social capital are also discussed.