FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1567798524> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1567798524 startingPage "309" @default.
• W1567798524 abstract "INTRODUCTION I. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SEVENTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE II. THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF PATENT TRIALS III. JUDGING JUDGES AND JURIES: WHAT THE STATISTICS SUGGEST IV. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? FROM PEER-TO-PATENT TO PEER-REVIEWED LITIGATION CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION Commentators describe the institution of the American jury as both a blessing and a curse. On the positive side, scholars hail the jury as a stalwart protector of defendants from an overly oppressive government. (1) Judges praise juries for providing an additional measure of perceived fairness and credibility to the United States legal system. (2) The presence of a jury tends to encourage simplification of complex issues. (3) Further, service on a jury provides a practical education in civics to the American public. (4) These praises, however, are sung more loudly in some corners of the legal world than in others. For example, many practitioners in patent law view jury fact-finding in their cases as a curse. At best, patent litigators may perceive juries as simply unequipped to understand complex technical, scientific, and legal standards involved in patent cases. (5) Tangential issues are thus viewed as more likely to sway a patent jury that does not understand more challenging issues central to a case. (6) At worst, patent juries are thought to be just plain biased in favor of patentees who have the benefit of approval from the experts at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). (7) In accordance with these critiques of juries in patent trials, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has narrowed the role of the jury in patent trials. (8) Moreover, the Supreme Court has for the most part affirmed these Federal Circuit's decisions. (9) The reasoning of these opinions that limit the jury's role in patent litigation stands in a shadow cast by the Seventh Amendment's codification of the right to a jury trial in certain civil trials. (10) The combination of developing patent law and varying interpretations of how to apply the Seventh Amendment to patent cases has created the current inconsistent approach to the division of labor between judges and juries in patent litigation. Despite limits placed on jury decision-making in patent cases and practitioner complaints about jury outcomes, the number of patent cases involving juries is increasing. (11) Statistical analyses of recent patent cases confirm that whether a judge or jury serves as the fact-finder has a significant impact on outcomes (12) even though neither fact-finder traditionally has technical or scientific training. (13) The Federal Circuit's juggling of factual matters, legal matters, precedent, and the Seventh Amendment in patent cases demonstrates that perhaps the round peg of patent law does not fit into the proverbial rectangular jury box. In an attempt to fit these incongruous pieces together, this paper will trace the development of Seventh Amendment precedent in the context of patent litigation to its current status. Further, this paper proposes a system akin to peer review to replace the traditional jury in patent trials. Such a system would be analogous to the current Peer-to-Patent experiment at the PTO, wherein scientific and technical experts have the opportunity to aid PTO examiners in determining the validity of patents. (14) The patent system is a unique system in American law because it boasts its own bar and its own governmental agency; in turn, its own court demands its own jury tailored to fill in the adjudicatory gap. (15) Adjudication of such public rights as those involved in patent validity (16) would find increased efficiency and credibility with public expert input. Moreover, given that there are few constitutional constraints on adjudication of public rights, such a process likely would survive constitutional scrutiny. (17) The area of patent law provides the American legal system with a unique opportunity to develop flexibility in the context of an otherwise cumbersome division of fact and law. …" @default.
• W1567798524 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1567798524 creator A5036802290 @default.
• W1567798524 date "2009-06-22" @default.
• W1567798524 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1567798524 title "Toward a More Reliable Fact-Finder In Patent Litigation" @default.
• W1567798524 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W1567798524 type Work @default.
• W1567798524 sameAs 1567798524 @default.
• W1567798524 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1567798524 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1567798524 hasAuthorship W1567798524A5036802290 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C115910719 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C2780273121 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C2984145337 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C37736160 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C115910719 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C144024400 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C151730666 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C17319257 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C17744445 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C19165224 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C199539241 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C2776119841 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C2779343474 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C2780273121 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C2984145337 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C34974158 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C37736160 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C71043370 @default.
• W1567798524 hasConceptScore W1567798524C86803240 @default.
• W1567798524 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1567798524 hasLocation W15677985241 @default.
• W1567798524 hasOpenAccess W1567798524 @default.
• W1567798524 hasPrimaryLocation W15677985241 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W120705205 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W1973704722 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W2289249296 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W2335081160 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W2516957060 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W2601299893 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W2953405017 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3019235052 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3121583314 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3123833423 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3124526596 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3125351877 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3125460542 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3186571489 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W793518205 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W8499309 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3121215020 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3125276471 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3143089565 @default.
• W1567798524 hasRelatedWork W3165335100 @default.
• W1567798524 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W1567798524 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1567798524 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1567798524 magId "1567798524" @default.
• W1567798524 workType "article" @default.