Washington College of Law
Volume 61, Issue 4

NOTE: Tianrui Group Co. v. International Trade Commission: The Dubious Status of Extraterritoriality and the Domestic Industry Requirement of Section 337

By Viki Economides | 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 1235 (2012)

In 2007, one journalist, Dirk Lammers, undertook a seemingly innocuous task:  to avoid anything “Made in China” for just one week.  He was not the first to undertake such a challenge in consumerism.  Others before him declared a boycott on Chinese products for an entire year, acting either out of concern for safety regarding allegations of Chinese food contamination and faulty assembly-line production of tires and toys, or simply reacting to the realization that everything they owned—or close to it—was Chinese.

Tailoring Remedies to Spur Innovation

By Sarah R. Wasserman Rajec | 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 733 (2012)

The George Washington University Law School

An emerging rule in the district courts—thus far endorsed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—allows a victorious patent holder to receive a permanent injunction against an infringer if she is able to show that she has suffered a loss of market share due to the infringement. The larger the loss of market share the patent holder can prove, the more likely the court will issue an injunction. This “market share rule” is a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., exhorting lower courts to engage in equitable balancing before awarding permanent injunctions. The case followed a flare-up of concern over entities—sometimes termed “patent trolls”—that do not practice their patents but demand what some consider exorbitant licensing fees from those who would. These entities arguably introduce inefficiencies into the patent system that impede innovation, thereby affecting access.

Changing Voices in a Familiar Conversation About Rules vs. Standards: Veterans Law at the Federal Circuit in 2011

By James D. Ridgway | 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 1175 (2012)

The George Washington University Law School

When an institution is in flux, there are two obvious ways to examine it.  One can attempt to make predictions about its future, or one can explore the current baseline to set up future analysis of the impact of change.  As discussed below, both the Federal Circuit and the dynamic that has shaped veterans law in recent decades are in flux.  This Article, while continuing the recent trend of reviewing the developments in veterans law at the Federal Circuit over the preceding calendar year, takes the latter approach to the bigger picture.  An annual review article is better suited to the second pursuit and there is little solid information that could be used to predict where the events of 2011 will take veterans law.  Accordingly, a deeper reflection on the status quo helps set the stage for digesting the coming changes.

2011 Trademark Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit

By Marynelle Wilson & Antigone Peyton | 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 1151 (2012)

Cloudigy Law PLLC

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s trademark docket was quiet in 2011.  The Federal Circuit issued only six trademark decisions, designating two of them as precedential.  The court issued a considerably higher number of trademark opinions in prior years.

2011 International Trade Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit

By Gregory J. Spak, Forrest R. Hansen & Daniel J. Hickman | 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 1105 (2012)

White & Case LLP

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occupies a unique position among the thirteen federal courts of appeals.  Hearing cases nationwide, the Federal Circuit exercises jurisdiction over specific subject matters, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the United States government, federal personnel, veterans benefits, and public safety officers’ benefits claims.  The Federal Circuit is frequently called upon to review decisions from the United States Court of International Trade, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and federal district courts.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2