Bradley Riel

The United Kingdom (“UK”) has recently undergone unprecedented constitutional reform. This reform includes significant changes to the relationship between the UK judiciary and legislative branches of government. This paper attempts to shed light on the likely effects of these changes on UK jurisprudence and, more specifically, patent litigation in the UK. Part I frames the question which this work attempts to answer and the motivation behind the question. Part II discusses the structure of… Show more

The United Kingdom (“UK”) has recently undergone unprecedented constitutional reform. This reform includes significant changes to the relationship between the UK judiciary and legislative branches of government. This paper attempts to shed light on the likely effects of these changes on UK jurisprudence and, more specifically, patent litigation in the UK. Part I frames the question which this work attempts to answer and the motivation behind the question. Part II discusses the structure of the UK legal system before the most recent and significant constitutional reform. Part III outlines the post-reform structure, emphasizing the key post-reform differences in the judiciary. Part IV evaluates trends resulting from and effects of similar constitutional reform in the United States (“US”) and discusses the likelihood of similar trends and effects being experienced in the UK. Part V provides conclusory remarks. Show less

Common sense suggests that patent litigation activity should be affected – at least to some degree – by economic conditions. Unfortunately, relatively few, if any, publications report on such relationships. This paper attempts to address this deficiency.

Part I frames the question which this work attempts to answer and the motivation behind the question. Part II discusses various economic indicators and suggests a particular indicator (i.e., GDP) to be used for subsequent comparison… Show more

Common sense suggests that patent litigation activity should be affected – at least to some degree – by economic conditions. Unfortunately, relatively few, if any, publications report on such relationships. This paper attempts to address this deficiency.

Part I frames the question which this work attempts to answer and the motivation behind the question. Part II discusses various economic indicators and suggests a particular indicator (i.e., GDP) to be used for subsequent comparison with patent-related litigation statistics. Part III compiles and summarizes various US patent-related litigation statistics. These include statistics for both US district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Part IV evaluates relationships between US GDP and the litigation statistics compiled in Part III. Part V provides conclusory remarks concerning the suggested relationships between changes in the US economy
and US patent litigation activity. Show less

The Federal Circuit’s opinion is in. For now, a claimed “process” is patent-eligible subject matter only if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. In accordance with the Federal Circuit’s 9-3 en banc opinion, addressing the patentability of a method for managing consumption risk costs of a commodity, the Federal Circuit rejected numerous other tests for determining the patentability of a process under §… Show more

The Federal Circuit’s opinion is in. For now, a claimed “process” is patent-eligible subject matter only if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. In accordance with the Federal Circuit’s 9-3 en banc opinion, addressing the patentability of a method for managing consumption risk costs of a commodity, the Federal Circuit rejected numerous other tests for determining the patentability of a process under § 101 – including the well-known “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test. Show less

An April 1, 2008 decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has, at least temporarily, stopped the United States Patent Office (“USPTO”) from promulgating new rules restricting the number of continuation applications, continuation-in-part applications, requests for continued examination (“RCE”), and claims that an applicant may pursue as a matter of right. In particular, the court granted plaintiffs Triantafyllos Tafas (“Tafas”) and GlaxoSmithKline’s (“GSK”)… Show more

An April 1, 2008 decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has, at least temporarily, stopped the United States Patent Office (“USPTO”) from promulgating new rules restricting the number of continuation applications, continuation-in-part applications, requests for continued examination (“RCE”), and claims that an applicant may pursue as a matter of right. In particular, the court granted plaintiffs Triantafyllos Tafas (“Tafas”) and GlaxoSmithKline’s (“GSK”) motions for summary judgment and requests to permanently enjoin the USPTO from enacting these new rules and voided the new rules as “not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority.” The court consequently denied the USPTO’s motion for summary judgment and motion to strike various exhibits and amici curiae.
Show less

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Sony Electronics, Inc. v. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. has confirmed that at least one element of the two-part test traditionally used by federal circuit and district courts is no longer applicable in view of the Supreme Court’s MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. decision in 2007. In particular, to determine whether an actual controversy exists between parties, the Federal Circuit no longer tests for an explicit threat or other action by a… Show more

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Sony Electronics, Inc. v. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. has confirmed that at least one element of the two-part test traditionally used by federal circuit and district courts is no longer applicable in view of the Supreme Court’s MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. decision in 2007. In particular, to determine whether an actual controversy exists between parties, the Federal Circuit no longer tests for an explicit threat or other action by a patentee which creates a reasonable apprehension on the part of a declaratory judgment plaintiff that it will face an infringement. Rather, the Federal Circuit, in determining whether an actual controversy exists, merely requires the dispute be "'definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests;' and that it be 'real and substantial' and 'admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.'"
Show less