FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1490610990> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1490610990 startingPage "1" @default.
• W1490610990 abstract "Good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking the Chicago-Kent Law School for the opportunity to share some unconventional thoughts with you about the way in which we have been handling patent appeals for more than 30 years. Whether you think that is a long time or a short time probably depends on how old you are: most of the people who are still in law school were not even born when Congress decided to assign all true patent appeals to the Federal Circuit, and so they will naturally think that we’ve had this system forever; old-timers like me can remember the previous regime, when the regional circuits handled patent appeals just as they do all other appeals (indeed, when I was a law clerk on the Fifth Circuit, my last assignment was a case concerning plant patents!). But either way, we should all be able to agree that there is nothing inevitable about the current system. And so, I’d like to spend my time this afternoon exploring the question whether it is time to abolish the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. For those of you simply interested in the bottom-line, I will spare you the suspense: I believe the answer is “Yes.” I hope that this does not cause you to think that my topic is so fanciful that you would be better off spending the next twenty minutes or so texting or checking your emails. In fact, as I propose to show you, there are better ways to solve the problems that this branch of the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction was designed to address, and, at a broader level, our understanding of intellectual property (IP) itself has shifted and deepened since 1982 in a way that pushes us back toward the unification of judicial responsibility for the field as a whole. As I have already mentioned, the Federal Circuit came into existence in 1982, with the passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act. That Act gave the new court exclusive jurisdiction over three types of appeals in patent cases: (1) appeals from district courts in cases “arising under” the patent laws or in which a party has asserted a compulsory counterclaim arising under the patent laws; (2) appeals from decisions of the Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences; and (3) appeals from investigations of the International Trade Commission into the importation of goods that allegedly infringe a U.S. patent. This work comprises the largest part of the court’s present docket. Yet the Federal Circuit is not a “specialized” court in the same sense as is the Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Delaware" @default.
• W1490610990 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1490610990 creator A5078905245 @default.
• W1490610990 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W1490610990 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1490610990 title "Keynote Address: Is It Time to Abolish the Federal Circuit's Exclusive Jurisdiction in Patent Cases?" @default.
• W1490610990 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1490610990 type Work @default.
• W1490610990 sameAs 1490610990 @default.
• W1490610990 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1490610990 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1490610990 hasAuthorship W1490610990A5078905245 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C115910719 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C136815107 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C2779520724 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C2984145337 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C111472728 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C115910719 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C136815107 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C138885662 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C144024400 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C17744445 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C190253527 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C199539241 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C2776949292 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C2779520724 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C2984145337 @default.
• W1490610990 hasConceptScore W1490610990C34974158 @default.
• W1490610990 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1490610990 hasLocation W14906109901 @default.
• W1490610990 hasOpenAccess W1490610990 @default.
• W1490610990 hasPrimaryLocation W14906109901 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W1204241306 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W129040843 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W1425784667 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W144174342 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W146880413 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W2056553904 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W2180338510 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W247295976 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W2594206242 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W2745195493 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W2917879874 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W304564813 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W37072330 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W394798881 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W415639308 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W63446714 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W88484703 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W196437970 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W305558706 @default.
• W1490610990 hasRelatedWork W309404650 @default.
• W1490610990 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W1490610990 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1490610990 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1490610990 magId "1490610990" @default.
• W1490610990 workType "article" @default.