The Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and Patent Law

The Michigan Law Review’s companion journal First Impressions today published an online symposium on the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and Patent Law. The symposium takes place against a backdrop of three recent Supreme Court decisions affecting patent law—KSR v. Teleflex, Microsoft v. AT&T, and eBay v. MercExchange.

A diverse group of authors considers whether these cases together represent, as some commentators have suggested, a recent upheaval in patent law and a modified relationship between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. The extended post contains a more complete description of the symposium as well as links to the essays.

• University of Michigan Law Professor Rebecca S. Eisenberg contends that the Federal Circuit’s control over patent law remains little diminished by the Court’s recent foray into the patent jurisprudence and argues that the most significant impact of KSR may be to embolden the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reject more patent applications for obviousness without fear of reversal.

• George Washington University Law Professor John F. Duffy argues that the Supreme Court’s reform of patent law substance and procedure was predictable and that KSR’s importance derives from the fact that it highlights many separate trends that are reshaping the patent system.

• Patent litigator Harold C. Wegner believes that the Microsoft case revealed the balkanized nature of the Federal Circuit and that KSR, through which the Supreme Court created a unified message, will therefore be crucial to the Federal Circuit under future Chief Judge Randal Rader.

• Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Eli Lilly & Co. Robert A. Armitage proposes that Congress adopt the National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations for reforming patent law rather than pursuing “anti-troll” objectives and simultaneously defends the judiciary’s successful track record of responding to common criticisms of anti-trolls without legislative intervention.

• Patent litigators Stephen G. Kunin and Andrew K. Beverina explain KSR’s effect on patent law and outline lessons that it suggests for patent prosecution and litigation.

To download a PDF of the entire symposium, please click here.

Additional First Impressions content is available at www.michiganlawreview.org.

Posted by Michigan Law Review at 05:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Symposium on Televising the Supreme Court

The Michigan Law Review’s companion journal First Impressions today published an online symposium discussing the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. The symposium takes place against a backdrop provided by legislation pending in the House and Senate that would require the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings.

A diverse group of authors explores the implications of the prospective legislation and considers potential risks and benefits of televising the Court’s proceedings. The extended post contains a more complete description of the symposium as well as the full text of the essays.

The Honorable Boyce F. Martin, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit contends that televising Supreme Court proceedings would help educate Americans about how their government works and heighten awareness of important legal issues.

University of Michigan Law Professor Christina B. Whitman argues that televising Supreme Court proceedings would mislead viewers by only randomly telling them something useful about the Court and is unnecessary because the Court is already more open than the government’s other branches.

Supreme Court Correspondent for the Legal Times Tony Mauro believes that Senator Specter’s legislation is worthwhile but contends the bill would have greater appeal if Senator Specter changed the focus of his efforts to see it enacted. Specter, he argues, should emphasize the benefits of televising to the public’s right to know rather than justifying the legislation as punishment for the Justices’ questioning of congressional motives.

Corporate Vice President and General Counsel for C-SPAN Bruce D. Collins describes C-SPAN’s past efforts to televise Supreme Court proceedings and clarifies how C-SPAN, if given the opportunity, would approach televising the Court.

Appellate litigator Kenneth N. Flaxman provides a practitioner’s perspective, explaining why televising Supreme Court proceedings would make his job as arguing counsel easier.

Fairleigh Dickinson University Professor of American Politics and the Judicial Process Bruce Peabody assesses whether Senator Specter’s legislation would breach constitutional etiquette.

University of Michigan J.D. Candidate Scott C. Wilcox proposes a compromise: to forestall congressional action, the Justices should consider voluntarily introducing archival video recording to be available for viewing at the National Archives.

To download a PDF of the entire symposium, click here. Additional First Impressions content is available at http://www.michiganlawreview.org/.

Posted by Michigan Law Review at 12:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Announcing the Law Review Forum Project

I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project. We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews. Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues. These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.

Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges. First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence. Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist. A wide readership for a website depends upon having daily content. Law review forums produce content sporadically throughout the year at intervals that are not regular enough to attract a significant readership.

Therefore, we have invited a number of law reviews to participate in a partnership with our blog. Throughout the year, each law review will periodically post forum essays here at Concurring Opinions. We are not requiring an exclusive license, so participating law reviews can also cross-post at their own websites.

We see this as a mutually-beneficial arrangement. We can bring great content to our blog, and law reviews can reach our significant audience without the pressures of having to build and maintain an online readership or of having to produce content with regularity.

Law reviews currently with and without existing forums will be participating. Thus far, the following law reviews have agreed to participate:

* Harvard Law Review
* Virginia Law Review
* Michigan Law Review
* University of Pennsylvania Law Review
* Northwestern Law Review
* UCLA Law Review
* George Washington Law Review

In the near future, we hope to be expanding the list of participating law reviews.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 01:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack