1 / 9

Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle

Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle. Craig A. Nard and John F. Duffy Patents and Diversity in Innovation University of Michigan Law School 29-30 September 2006. Issue and Proposal . Issue : What is optimal amount of centralization in patent law’s appellate architecture?

ulani
Télécharger la présentation

Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle Craig A. Nard and John F. Duffy Patents and Diversity in Innovation University of Michigan Law School 29-30 September 2006

  2. Issue and Proposal • Issue: What is optimal amount of centralization in patent law’s appellate architecture? • Choice between centralization and decentralization cannot be answered with polar solution • Pre-1982 characterized excessive decentralization • Post-1982 characterizes excessive centralization • Optimization • Proposal: In addition to CAFC, grant appellate jurisdiction to at least one extant circuit court

  3. Federal Circuit Experiment • Structural Constraints • Power of precedent • No benefit of sister-circuit jurisprudence • No competition from peers • Poor mechanism to gather information and test innovations • Self Induced • More adroitly deploy common law • More receptive to academic literature and district court complaints

  4. Centralization v. Decentralization Issue has Broad application • Design of gov’t institutions • Federalism • International Law and Antitrust Law • Theory of business organizations • Theory of R&D • Across wide range of institutions, similar arguments in support of centralization and decentralization • Both centralization and decentralization have benefits and costs

  5. Costs and Benefits of Centralization and Decentralization in Patent Law • Competition • Judges value reputation and quality of opinions • Check on poor decisions and induce more complete and thoughtful rationales • Imbue confidence if a shared decision is reached independently • Cost: Strategic behavior, namely forum shopping

  6. Costs and Benefits of Centralization and Decentralization in Patent Law, cont. • Information Gathering and Sharing • Appellate system relies on lawyer arguments • Multiple information gathering points allows for more complete and reliable data • Litigants and courts more likely to be creative, cite and rely on historical materials, academic literature, etc. • Allow for more appellate arguments, more cases, more factual scenarios, and more complete picture of particular issue • Percolation and teeing up for Supreme Court • Cost: too much decentralization leads to less expertise – the pre-1982 problem

  7. Costs and Benefits of Centralization and Decentralization in Patent Law, cont. • Induce Innovations • Decentralization fosters innovation, experimentation, trial-and-error, etc. • Multi-circuit model allows for innovations to be tested • Cost: Need baseline of concentrated knowledge – pre-82 there were too many cooks in the kitchen

  8. Challenges and Concerns • Forum Shopping • Appellate jurisdiction randomly assigned post-district court filing • Claim Construction Disuniformity • Potential for disuniformity/duopoly • Uniformity fostered by issue preclusion and stare decisis • Choice of Law

  9. Thank you

More Related