Search

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. is frequently discussed in general terms without sufficient attention to the specifics of the case, including the relevant statutes, the regulations being reviewed, and the arguments that the parties presented and failed to present. As the Supreme Court now considers whether to "overrule" Chevron, it is imperative to review how the case should have been decided had the parties presented the complete set of statutes governing judicial review. Such a "de novo" look at Chevron would produce the same outcome (sustaining the agency's regulations) but with radically different reasoning, beginning with a recognition that a reviewing court must "decide" all relevant questions of law. Yet in deciding all relevant questions of law, reviewing courts must frequently confront, as in Chevron itself, the crucial question of how much delegated power the agency possesses. Reviewing courts should focus on that statutory issue--the extent of delegation--and eschew the pointless project of spinning elaborate judicially-fabricated rules concerning deference to agency legal interpretations. Much of that reorientation from deference to delegation was already accomplished in United States v. Mead. In the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce cases, the Court should complete the reorientation, disavow the analysis in Chevron, and determine de novo the amount of power delegated to the agency. That approach (i) respects the varied agency delegations authorized by Congress; (ii) adheres to the Administrative Procedure Act's comprehensive framework for judicial review; and (iii) requires the outcomes in the Loper Bright and Relentless cases to be controlled by the unusually narrow delegation of agency power in the relevant statutes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most investigations of the optimal patent term problem have followed Nordhaus's assumption that setting and optimal patent term requires balancing the incentives necessary to encourage innovation against the inefficiencies associated with longer lasting monopoly rights. Nordhaus, however, relied upon a static model in which all investments and innovations occur at a fixed time. If the times of investments and innovation are not fixed, the time of patent expiration becomes a "U-shaped" function of patent life. Below a minimum patent term, increasing patent life results in both earlier innovation and earlier patent expiration. Increasing patent life up to this term involves no tradeoff but instead unambiguously increases welfare.

Most online news sources are electronic versions of printed newspapers that have been filtered, from news produced each day, with a given community profile in mind. An evaluation of user preference for personal editions versus community editions of online news was performed. A personalized edition of a local newspaper was created for each subject based on a model that combined user profile and community profile. (Contains 45 references.) (AEF)

I. INTRODUCTION II. INNOVATION FOR RECOVERY A. The Diversity of Innovation 1. Economic Innovation 2. Regulatory Innovation 3. Governmental Innovation B. Pragmatic Innovation III. RECOVERY AND INNOVATION A. Claim Interpretation [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. CHALLENGES IN DEFINING THE LIMITS OF PATENTABILITY II. THE HISTORY OF FAILED PATENTABILITY RULES A. The Unpatentability of Changes in Form and Proportions B. The [...]

Psychiatric hospital records of 182 adult females were reviewed to determine feasibility of using the MMPI to uncover repressed histories of childhood abuse. Charts with MMPI profiles that met the standard and extended Scarlett O'Hara V configurations were examined for histories of childhood sexual or physical abuse and exposure to parental alcoholism. Findings were compared with a representative sample of control patients who did not have Scarlett O'Hara V configurations. Results showed that the MMPI can help detect adults who as children were sexually or nonsexually abused, or had alcoholic caretakers, or a combination of the above.

The retranslation method, usually used in job performance rating, was used to develop a scale for evaluating an educational television series. The method itself was evaluated using both developmental and actual field use data. Results were mixed. (Author/SJL)

Providing clear notice of property rights is a worthwhile goal, but legal requirements for notice can also thwart that goal. If the law imposes unrealistic notice requirements and invalidates the whole right as a penalty for non-compliance, the enforcement mechanism can weaken notice by transforming imprecision at the edges of the property right (where uncertainty is greatest) into uncertainty throughout the entirety of the right. The paradox associated with such notice requirements is evident in modern patent claiming doctrine. Under current Federal Circuit law, patent claims are treated as precise verbal descriptions demarcating the outer edges of patent rights, and with minor exceptions, the patentee is assumed to have rights to everything that falls within the literal bounds of the claim. That "literalistic claiming" method deviates sharply from the "peripheral claiming" method that was dominant throughout most of the twentieth century. This essay gives reasons for believing (1) that the Federal Circuit's current approach to claiming is inconsistent with both Supreme Court and prior circuit case law in several significant respects; (2) that the Federal Circuit's current approach is irreconcilable with principles of rights definition in other areas of property law; and (3) that a seemingly less precise approach to patent claiming might produce better notice and otherwise be more consistent with good patent policy. The essay concludes with practical suggestions concerning how the Federal Circuit's approach to patent claiming can be changed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standing to challenge patent validity depends not only on factual assessments about the risk of patent enforcement, but also on legal judgments about the limits of judicial power under Article III of the Constitution, the specific causes of action granted by Congress through its Article I powers, and the degree of Article II executive branch power exercised in enforcing patents. Consumer suits show the importance of the legislative power, for Congress has created two causes of action that differ dramatically in their ability to provide consumers with an effective means for challenging patents. Competitor suits show the importance of Article II considerations. Because patents are enforced largely by private parties, courts should be more willing to grant standing to plaintiffs challenging the validity of patents than to plaintiffs challenging the validity of statutes or regulations that can be enforced only by governmental actors in the executive branch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]