The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents

Duffy, John F.

doi:10.1086/scr.2002.3109720

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This had encouraged forum shopping (Petherbridge and Wagner, 2007, p. 2057). The Supreme Court had not for some time acted to resolve these conflicts between circuits because, well before the Federal Circuit's inception and until recently, the area had been neglected by the Supreme Court following the removal of its mandatory appellate jurisdiction for patent cases at the end of the nineteenth century (Duffy, 2002, pp. 275–6) 11…”

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is seen as a positive development as it is thought that more frequent Supreme Court input will stimulate debate within the Federal Circuit itself and thus prevent stagnation of the law in this area. It has been argued that one benefit of the current system is that, once the specialized Federal Circuit has teased out and analysed the legal issues and arguments, there is a final review of that decision by a generalist appellate court free from any inherent bias which may be present in a specialized patent court (Duffy, 2002, p. 303) 21 . It has also been argued that the Supreme Court as a generalist appellate body will curb rapid alteration in the law where the ever‐emergence of new technology and scientific discoveries could lead to unprincipled development of the law in an area that requires stability (but not stagnation) (Duffy, 2002, p. 304).…”

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is subject to the caveat that the role of any generalist appellate court must be a relatively retiring one based on a cautious adherence to precedent (Duffy, 2002, p. 305). A generalist court is not best placed for experimentation regarding reforms in the IP area.…”

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A generalist court is not best placed for experimentation regarding reforms in the IP area. Initiating substantive changes in the law demands a significant body of knowledge and expertise which a generalist court lacks (Duffy, 2002, p. 305). A specialist court panel is generally better equipped to take a leading role in developing law for the needs of the IP community and any experimentation that is unsuitable can be reversed on appeal (Duffy, 2002, p. 305).…”

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A particular issue may be that the vast majority of valuable inventions are not the ground‐breaking advances that open up a whole new field of technology but are rather incremental improvements to current technologies (Duffy, 2002, p. 329). The details may be difficult for generalist judges to understand and may appear, to the untrained mind, to seem so minor as to be irrelevant (Duffy, 2002, p. 330). This concern, however, does not apply in such a significant way to other IP disputes.…”

Section: Pros and Cons Of Specializationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Specialist Patent or Intellectual Property Court for New Zealand?

Glazebrook¹

2009

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specialization in intellectual property law has, in recent years, become an important issue due to the need for an efficient system for the resolution of intellectual property and patent disputes. Specialist courts or panels within existing courts have been developed in many jurisdictions and the question posed in this article is whether New Zealand should follow suit. This article traverses the differing specialist intellectual property (IP) and patent adjudication systems in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Japan to assess what system would best suit New Zealand. The benefits and disadvantages of specialization generally are also discussed. The conclusion is that the time is ripe for some form of specialization in IP matters in New Zealand and that the best model for New Zealand to adopt is one similar to that of the Federal Court of Australia panel system, whereby judges opt into particular panels while still taking on cases within the court's general docket. The article proposes that this specialization in New Zealand should occur in the High Court (trial level) as the real need for specialist knowledge is at the fact‐finding stage. It is argued that a panel system would strike the appropriate balance between developing expertise on the bench, allowing for cross‐fertilization of legal developments, while also preventing stagnation and idiosyncratic interpretations of the law. Some specialization at intermediate appellate court level is also recommended.

show abstract

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Specialization In Overseas Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pros and Cons Of Specializationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Specialist Patent or Intellectual Property Court for New Zealand?

Glazebrook¹

2009

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories:The Supreme Court Listens, but Declines to Speak

Klein¹,

Mahoney²

2008

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, a longstanding legal rule exists against patenting natural phenomena. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to help define the boundaries and clarify the implications of this "natural phenomenon doctrine" in Laboratory Corporation of America v. Metabolite Labs., dismissed as improvidently granted. This article argues that the natural phenomenon doctrine renders both the patent claim at issue in LabCorp, and the patents that directly or indirectly claim biological correlations between genotypes and medical phenotypes, invalid or unenforceable under U.S. patent law.

show abstract

Pregnant Men: Repronormativity, Critical Trans Theory and the Re(conceive)ing of Sex and Pregnancy in Law

Karaian

2013

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that a critical re(conceive)ing of sex and pregnancy is required in law. Drawing on the dual meaning of conceive -'to become pregnant' and 'to imagine, or form a mental representation of', the goal of this article is to better ensure that pregnant men and trans individuals are not denied their reproductive rights, the legal recognition of their gender identities, and the protections of pregnancy discrimination law. Here, I survey molecular biologists' and critical trans theorists' scientific and discursive challenges to the understanding of sex as biologically determined; I map the extent to which biological and repronormative discourses -those which materialize and maternalize female identityunderpin legal determinations of trans subjects' sex and their ability to access state issued documentation; finally, I suggest that feminists' efforts to construct pregnancy discrimination as sex discrimination may unwittingly factor into discriminatory practice against pregnant men by reifying pregnancy as necessarily female and thus pregnant men as 'really' women. Drawing on Darren Rosenblum's call to unsex parenting, I conclude by briefly considering the opportunities presented by unsexing pregnancy in law.

show abstract

The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

A Specialist Patent or Intellectual Property Court for New Zealand?

A Specialist Patent or Intellectual Property Court for New Zealand?

LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories:The Supreme Court Listens, but Declines to Speak

Pregnant Men: Repronormativity, Critical Trans Theory and the Re(conceive)ing of Sex and Pregnancy in Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About