CPIP Scholars Ask Supreme Court to Resist Call to Restrict Venue Choices for Patent Owners

On March 8, 2017, CPIP Scholars Adam Mossoff, Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, & Mark Schultz joined an amicus brief in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. CPIP Scholars worked with USD Law’s Ted Sichelman to organize, write, and file the brief. The case focuses on whether patent owners may sue corporate defendants … Continue reading “CPIP Scholars Ask Supreme Court to Resist Call to Restrict Venue Choices for Patent Owners”

Statement of Professor Adam Mossoff on Akamai v. Limelight

By Adam Mossoff In Akamai v. Limelight, the Federal Circuit expanded its definition of what it means for someone to be directly liable for patent infringement when they direct or control other people’s actions.  Through its proper judicial role in interpreting the meaning of the portion of the Patent Act defining direct infringement — Section … Continue reading “Statement of Professor Adam Mossoff on Akamai v. Limelight”

It’s Time to Say “No” to Junk Science in the Patent Policy Debates

Last March, forty economists and law professors submitted a letter to Congress expressing “deep concerns with the many flawed, unreliable, or incomplete studies about the American patent system that have been provided to members of Congress.”  These concerns were confirmed again last week when Unified Patents released a report on patent litigation with the same … Continue reading “It’s Time to Say “No” to Junk Science in the Patent Policy Debates”

Unintended Consequences of “Patent Reform”: The Customer Suit Exception

In the last two weeks, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees marked up wide-ranging patent legislation ostensibly aimed at combating frivolous litigation by so-called “patent trolls.” But while the stated purpose of the House and Senate bills—H.R. 9 (the “Innovation Act”) and S. 1137 (the “PATENT Act”), respectively—is to combat abusive litigation, a closer look … Continue reading “Unintended Consequences of “Patent Reform”: The Customer Suit Exception”