Journal articles: 'Federal Circuit'

1

FUJINO, Jinzo. "Federal Circuit." Journal of Information Processing and Management 45, no. 11 (2003): 764–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1241/johokanri.45.764.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Fraedrich, Laura. "Federal Circuit Keeps Commerce Honest." Global Trade and Customs Journal 6, Issue 2 (February 1, 2011): 117–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2011017.

Full text

Abstract:

Twenty years ago, from May 1990 through April 1991, Shinyei Corporation of America (hereinafter “Shinyei”) imported ball bearings into the United States that were subject to an antidumping duty order on ball bearings from Japan. The ball bearings had been manufactured by six different Japanese manufacturers and were subject to the second administrative review of the relevant antidumping duty order. The Department of Commerce, however, failed to apply the results of that administrative review to Shinyei’s imports, and Shinyei sued the Department of Commerce at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in 2000. This case note follows the path of the ensuing litigation, including three remands to the CIT by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (hereinafter “Federal Circuit”), which recently awarded attorney’s fees to Shinyei under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Calvin, Darrell. "How Far Do the Powers of the I.R.S. Extend in the Fifth Circuit? Johnson v. Sawyer." Texas Wesleyan Law Review 5, no. 1 (October 1998): 79–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/twlr.v5.i1.4.

Full text

Abstract:

The Fifth Circuit chose to recognize a judicially-created exception to the statute in Johnson v. Sawyer. This Note takes issue with the Fifth Circuit's holding in Johnson. The IRS is a creature of statute and, as such, should be governed by statute. If any further life is given the agency, it is for Congress, and not the judiciary to declare. If taxpayers convicted in the Fifth Circuit are to have their transgressions publicized, it should be with the specific approval of their elected representatives. Part I of this Note traces the development of judiciallycreated exceptions to I.R.C. § 6103 in the federal circuits. Part II reviews Johnson at its various levels and analyzes the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in finding an exception to the statute. Part III discusses the flaws in the Fifth Circuit's reasoning, along with the weaknesses inherent in the rule it adopted, and asserts the rule advanced by the Tenth and Fourth Circuits as proper.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Rein, Frederick H., and Joseph B. Crystal. "Novo Nordisk v.. Caraco: Who defines the use code narrative?" Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 9, no. 4 (December 2012): 223–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741134312470124.

Full text

Abstract:

In Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Caraco Pharma. Labs., Ltd. et al., 688 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of the injunction issued by the District Court in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S et al. (U.S. 2012). The Federal Circuit found that the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing its injunction and modified the injunction accordingly. This case report presents the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed those issues.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Esq, Michael J. Fink,. "Substantive Federal Circuit decisions concerning pharmaceutical companies." Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 9, no. 2 (May 24, 2012): 86–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741134312445869.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Macedo, C. R. "Federal circuit reminds US BPAI of fundamentals." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 5, no. 1 (December 9, 2009): 8–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpp197.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Bousquet, Jeffrey R. "Biosimilars and federal preemption in the USA." Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 15, no. 3 (May 22, 2018): 138–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741134318776436.

Full text

Abstract:

Summary This article reports on the recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in Amgen v. Sandoz on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a biosimilar applicant cannot be compelled under federal law to provide a copy of its abbreviated biologics license application (“aBLA”) and manufacturing information to the reference product sponsor (“RPS”) as required by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit to determine whether there was any remedy under California state law available to Amgen, and if so, whether such remedy is preempted by the BPCIA. The Federal Circuit held that the BPCIA preempts state law remedies for a biosimilar applicant’s failure to comply with the BPCIA. This article also briefly discusses three other recent cases involving situations where the biosimilar applicant initiates the BPCIA information exchange process but provides only partial or no manufacturing information to the RPS or fails to complete the process by opting out at some later stage of the process.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Rein, Frederick H., and Joseph B. Crystal. "Unigene Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al.: Reformulating an old drug is not as obvious as one might think." Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 9, no. 1 (March 2012): 36–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741134311433733.

Full text

Abstract:

In Unigene Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al., 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit addressed issues of obviousness and the crime fraud exception to privilege. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of summary judgment of obviousness and its grant of summary judgment of nonobviousness. In addition, the Federal Circuit found that the District Court had properly found that documents had not been improperly withheld based on the crime-fraud exception and that additional theories of inequitable conduct raised by Apotex at later stages of the litigation had either been previously addressed by the District Court or had been waived. This case report presents the arguments made at the District Court and Federal Circuit and how each of these courts addressed the issues raised by the parties.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Barnett, Kent, and Christopher Walker. "Chevron in the Circuit Courts." Michigan Law Review, no. 116.1 (2017): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.36644/mlr.116.1.chevron.

Full text

Abstract:

This Article presents findings from the most comprehensive empirical study to date on how the federal courts of appeals have applied Chevrondeference— the doctrine under which courts defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers. Based on 1,558 agency interpretations the circuit courts reviewed from 2003 through 2013 (where they cited Chevron), we found that the circuit courts overall upheld 71% of interpretations and applied Chevrondeference 77% of the time. But there was nearly a twenty-five-percentage-point difference in agency-win rates when the circuit courts applied Chevrondeference than when they did not. Among many other findings, our study reveals important differences across circuits, agencies, agency formats, and subject matters as to judicial review of agency statutory interpretations. Based on prior empirical studies of judicial deference at the Supreme Court, however, our findings suggest that there may be a ChevronSupreme and a ChevronRegular: whereas Chevronmay not have much of an effect on agency outcomes at the Supreme Court, Chevron deference seems to matter in the circuit courts. That there is a ChevronSupreme and a ChevronRegular may suggest that, in Chevron, the Supreme Court has an effective tool to supervise lower courts’ review of agency statutory interpretations. To render Chevron more effective in creating uniformity throughout the circuit courts, the Supreme Court needs to send clearer signals on how courts should apply the deference standard.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Oswald, Lynda J. "Improving Federal Circuit Doctrine Through Increased Cross-Pollination." American Business Law Journal 54, no. 2 (April 21, 2017): 247–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12099.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Jackson, Donald W., and James W. Riddlesperger. "Search and Seizure at the Federal Circuit Level." Criminal Justice Policy Review 2, no. 1 (March 1987): 53–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088740348700200104.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Macedo, C. R., and D. Goldberg. "Federal Circuit grants mandamus on Delaware transfer motion." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 7, no. 4 (February 22, 2012): 229–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps011.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Ventose, E. D. "Federal Circuit clarifies patent unenforceability for inequitable conduct." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 7, no. 8 (July 12, 2012): 551–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps093.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Noonan, Kevin. "Diagnostic patents at risk after Federal Circuit decisions." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 15, no. 6 (May 20, 2016): 377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.105.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Ventose, E. D. "Federal Circuit rules that cloned animals are not patentable." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 9, no. 11 (September 30, 2014): 875–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu151.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Owens, Ryan J., and Patrick C. Wohlfarth. "Public Mood, Previous Electoral Experience, and Responsiveness Among Federal Circuit Court Judges." American Politics Research 45, no. 6 (April 5, 2017): 1003–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17692325.

Full text

Abstract:

Whether public opinion influences federal judges is a question that has long motivated—but often eluded—scholars. In this article, we examine two related questions: First, whether federal circuit court judges respond to circuit-level public opinion and, second, whether judges with extensive past elected political experience are even more responsive. The data show that circuit judges indeed respond to public opinion. The results also suggest that judges with greater past elected political experience may be more responsive. The results have implications for democratic control of the unelected judiciary, and suggest that appointing judges with electoral experience could, for better or worse, lead to a more majoritarian judiciary.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Alday, Karen. "Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC and the Unresolved Circuit Split." Texas A&M Journal of Property Law 7, no. 2 (March 2021): 137–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/jpl.v7.i2.1.

Full text

Abstract:

The natural gas industry is central to the United States economy. However, due to vague regulations and judicial leniency, natural gas pipeline companies have almost zero restraint in exercising eminent domain. Their current operations mirror that of the federal government’s authority to exercise immediate possession. Recently, landowners have contested the pipeline industry’s authority to exercise eminent domain, which has developed into a circuit split. The Fourth Circuit, and the six other circuits that have followed suit, hold that pipeline companies have the substantive right to immediate entry and are entitled to a preliminary injunction before a trial on just compensation. The Seventh Circuit holds that the courts do not have the authority to grant immediate entry, and the pipeline company must complete the entire standard condemnation process before entering the property. In 2019, there were two attempts to bring this issue before the Supreme Court, and both attempts failed. This Note evaluates the most recent attempt in Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC and argues that the Supreme Court should address this issue and adopt the Seventh Circuit approach.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Timney, M. M. "Short Circuit: Federal-State Relations in the California Energy Crisis." Publius: The Journal of Federalism 32, no. 4 (January 1, 2002): 109–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a004963.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Reiter, Tiffany A., Jay Kugler DeYoung, and J. Peter Fasse. "2013 Year-in-Review: Patent Cases at the Federal Circuit." Industrial Biotechnology 10, no. 2 (April 2014): 79–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ind.2014.1507.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Venegas, K. V. "Federal Circuit affirms Nilssen's 15 patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 3, no. 4 (February 26, 2008): 212–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpn021.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Macedo, C. R. "$24 million judgment of wilful infringement affirmed by Federal Circuit." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 7, no. 3 (February 16, 2012): 151–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpr220.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Stern, Richard H. "Federal Circuit Speaks Out on Determining RAND Royalties for Standards." IEEE Micro 35, no. 1 (January 2015): 57–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/mm.2015.17.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Zullow, Keith A., Cindy Chang, and Sean Anderson. "Idenix v. Gilead: The enablement and written description limits of a genus claim." Journal of Generic Medicines: The Business Journal for the Generic Medicines Sector 17, no. 2 (June 2021): 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17411343211013572.

Full text

Abstract:

In Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Sci. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of invalidity of a patent claiming methods for treating Hepatitis C virus for, inter alia, lack of enablement. The Supreme Court denied Idenix’s petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning that the Federal Circuit decision stands, and genus claims covering thousands of compounds that were supported by an insufficient number of examples have failed the enablement test not once, but twice. See Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This case report presents the context surrounding the Federal Circuit’s Idenix decision and the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Leake, Timothy. "Arbitration Waiver and Prejudice." Michigan Law Review, no. 119.2 (2020): 397. http://dx.doi.org/10.36644/mlr.119.2.arbitration.

Full text

Abstract:

Arbitration agreements are common in commercial and consumer contracts. But two parties can litigate an arbitrable dispute in court if neither party seeks arbitration. That presents a problem if one party changes its mind and invokes its arbitration rights months or years after the lawsuit was filed and substantial litigation activity has taken place. Federal and state courts agree that a party can waive its arbitration rights by engaging in sufficient litigation activity without seeking arbitration, but they take different approaches to deciding how much litigation is too much. Two basic methods exist. Some courts say waiver requires the party opposing arbitration to show it would be prejudiced by the delay. Others say that waiver does not require a showing of prejudice. This Note demonstrates that the presence or absence of a prejudice requirement does not accurately capture the disagreements between the federal circuit courts. Indeed, some circuits that impose a prejudice requirement will find waiver in circumstances where other courts that do not impose a prejudice requirement will not. These divergent approaches result in uncertainty, delay, and expense, undermining arbitration’s benefits. To resolve the circuit split, this Note proposes a bright-line standard under which engaging in litigation never supports a finding of waiver. It also shows that this approach is consistent with common law waiver doctrine and the Federal Arbitration Act.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Li, Quan. "To Prosecute or Not to Prosecute, That is the Question: Agency Litigation under the Influence of Appellate Courts." Canadian Journal of Political Science 45, no. 1 (March 2012): 185–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008423911000953.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract. This article examines how institutional uncertainty within the US federal circuit courts influences regulatory agencies' enforcement choices of prosecution or non-prosecution. I argue that the circuits' random assignment of judges and cases creates institutional uncertainty in terms of variation in each circuit's possible rulings with respect to the bureaucracy's policy position. This, in turn, affects agencies' probability of prosecution because the high degree of uncertainty will discourage prosecution, given its cost. In other words, agencies reduce their exposure to judicial review by avoiding prosecution. I use ideological variance within the circuits as a proxy for measuring the circuit courts' internal group dynamics. Large ideological variance indicates high institutional uncertainty and consequently leads to fewer numbers of prosecutions by the bureaucracy. The empirical results based on the prosecution record of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice from 1950 to 1994 strongly support the theory.Résumé. L'article analyse comment l'imprévisibilité des décisions judiciaires au niveau des cours d'appel fédérales de circuit influence les décisions par les agences publiques de poursuivre les contrevenants à la règlementation. Je montre que l'attribution des juges et des causes par loterie crée de l'incertitude quant à l'issue des poursuites. L'incertitude réduit la probabilité que les agences publiques entament des poursuites judiciaires étant donné le coût élevé de celles-ci. En d'autres termes, les agences publiques atténuent l'implémentation de la règlementation par crainte de perdre devant des tribunaux imprévisibles. J'utilise une mesure de variance idéologique pour quantifier la dynamique de groupe à l'intérieur des circuits judiciaires. Une grande variance idéologique signifie un résultat incertain et mène à un nombre réduit de poursuites initiées par les agences publiques. Les données empiriques, provenant des registres de la Division Anti-trust du Ministère de la Justice des États-Unis pour la période s'étendant de 1950 à 1994, soutiennent fortement la théorie.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Barber, Christopher. "L. R. Willson and Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission: The State of the Employee Misconduct Defense in OSHA Adjudications Involving Serious Violations." Texas Wesleyan Law Review 6, no. 2 (March 2000): 187–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/twlr.v6.i2.2.

Full text

Abstract:

Recently, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals chose to remain in the minority on this issue with its holding in L.R. Willson & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission. This Note supports the Fourth Circuit's Willson holding. The rule followed by the Fourth Circuit and the other minority Courts of Appeals is in harmony with both the spirit and the letter of the law in question. This holding also has some sensible policy underpinnings. The Courts of Appeals holding the majority view never truly attempt to reconcile their position on this issue with federal statutory law and have never communicated a viable policy argument for burdening the employer cited with a serious safety violation with proving this defense. Part I of this Note gives a detailed narration of the Willson case. Part II examines portions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 applicable to this issue. In Part III, this Note explores sample cases from courts favoring the majority view on this issue ("Employer's Burden" Circuits) while Part IV studies important decisions of minority courts ("OSHA Burden" Circuits). Part V analyzes these two positions and reveals the superiority of the minority courts' decisions. Finally, Part VI concludes this discussion and recommends that the Willson decision on this issue be made the law of the land.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

King, Nancy J. "Non-Capital Habeas Cases after Appellate Review: An Empirical Analysis." Federal Sentencing Reporter 24, no. 4 (April 1, 2012): 308–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2012.24.4.308.

Full text

Abstract:

In 2007, researchers from the National Center for State Courts and Vanderbilt University Law School reported the findings from a study of litigation in 2384 randomly selected, non-capital habeas cases, approximately 6.5% of the non-capital habeas cases commenced in federal district courts in 2003 and 2004 by state prisoners. In this article, I update that report, including the cases that were pending when the 2007 report was prepared, following the study cases into the federal courts of appeals, and back into the state courts. Even after appellate review of denials and dismissals, the percentage of non-capital petitioners receiving federal habeas relief remains less than the 1% rate reported prior to AEDPA. Descriptive findings include appeals and requests to file successive petitions by circuit, and rulings on certificates of appealability by circuit. Detailed information regarding each case receiving relief in federal court is also included.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Brandão, Eric, William D'Andrea Fonseca, and Paulo Henrique Mareze. "An algorithmic approach to electroacoustical analogies." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 152, no. 1 (July 2022): 667–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0012886.

Full text

Abstract:

The low-frequency behavior of acoustical transducers can be simulated with the so-called electroacoustical analogies (or lumped parameters). The main idea is that visual inspection of the transducer allows the derivation of an electroacoustic circuit that can be analyzed. The technique is computationally efficient and provides significant physical insight into the transducer. Electroacoustical analogies are taught today in many courses around the world. However, it is difficult to find reading material with an algorithmic approach to derive the electroacoustic circuit from the visual inspection of the transducer. This paper presents algorithms to derive the mechanical and acoustical circuits of transducer systems and how to couple the electrical, mechanical, and acoustical circuits for electrodynamic and capacitive transducers. A number of examples of the derivation are presented in detail. These techniques were conceived from an extensive search of the classical literature in acoustics and adapted to the teaching needs of undergraduate and graduate students of the Acoustical Engineering at the Federal University of Santa Maria in Brazil.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Kulke, R., G. Möllenbeck, C. Günner, P. Uhlig, K. H. Drüe, S. Humbla, J. Müller, et al. "Ceramic Microwave Circuits for Satellite Communication." Journal of Microelectronics and Electronic Packaging 6, no. 1 (January 1, 2009): 27–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.4071/1551-4897-6.1.27.

Full text

Abstract:

KERAMIS is the acronym of a German research and development project funded by the German Space Agency (DLR) and the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWI). The consortium is developing an RF circuit technology for Ka band multimedia satellite applications. A set of modules has been designed, manufactured, and tested by the partners of the consortium. The goal of this effort is to qualify the KERAMIS technology for space applications and to participate in an on-orbit-verification (OOV) program of the DLR. The launch of the technology verification satellite (TET) is scheduled for late 2010. This paper will give an overview of innovative circuit and module designs as well as the assembly, integration, and test results of the project. The authors will present a modular circuit concept for state-of-the-art transmitters and receivers in space at around 20 GHz. Selected modules are a 4 × 4 switch matrix, two synthesizers, and other RF modules. All circuits are based on multilayer ceramic (LTCC) including passive components, transitions, housings, and DC supply.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Wagner, R. Polk, and Lee Petherbridge. "Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 152, no. 3 (January 2004): 1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3313015.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Holman, Christopher M. "Patent Term Adjustment: Recent Developments at the Federal Circuit and PTO." Biotechnology Law Report 39, no. 4 (August 1, 2020): 266–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/blr.2020.29191.cmh.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Armstrong, J. A. "Federal Circuit rejects proposition that arbitration agreement 'runs with the patent'." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 3, no. 11 (November 1, 2008): 682–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpn169.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Macedo, C. R., M. J. Kasdan, and S. A. Hudak. "US Federal Circuit remains split on how to approach patent eligibility." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 7, no. 12 (September 28, 2012): 842–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps152.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Degler, Kaleb. "May I Use The Restroom? The Supreme Court’s Likely Opportunity to Define “Sex” in Title IX and End the Transgender Bathroom Debate." SMU Law Review 75, no. 4 (2022): 917. http://dx.doi.org/10.25172/smulr.75.4.7.

Full text

Abstract:

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock, which established that “sex” under Title VII includes gender identity and sexual orientation, now protects LGBTQ+ persons from discrimination in the workplace. However, this interpretation of “sex” was not subsequently applied wholesale to “sex” under Title IX, leaving many LGBTQ+ students—particularly transgender students—subject to the fate of where they were born and the shifting tides of the federal executive. Beginning with the Obama Administration, a history of conflicting guidance and opinion letters has dominated the discussion on whether transgender students are allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. In 2020, the Fourth Circuit in Grimm interpreted “sex” under Title IX as including gender identity and sexual orientation, thereby establishing the right of transgender students to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The same year, the Eleventh Circuit reached an identical conclusion. However, the Eleventh Circuit subsequently vacated this opinion and granted a rehearing, suggesting that it will likely reach the opposite conclusion on rehearing. The Supreme Court could soon find itself in a position to settle a circuit split between the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits and should grant certiorari to uphold the rights of transgender students, regardless of what circuit jurisdiction they may live in or who the president may be.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Ferrey, Steven. "Superfund Chaos Theory: What Happens When the Lower Federal Courts Don't Follow the Supreme Court." Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law, no. 6.1 (2016): 151. http://dx.doi.org/10.36640/mjeal.6.1.superfund.

Full text

Abstract:

There is legal chaos in the national Superfund. The Supreme Court reversed decisions of eleven federal circuit courts in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. There is no instance in modern Supreme Court history where the Court reversed every federal circuit court in the country, as it did in Atlantic Research. The Supreme Court’s reversal was through a unanimous decision. This was extraordinary: It not only reversed the entire legal interpretation of one of America’s most critical statutes, but also re-allocated billions of dollars among private parties. The Supreme Court, when it rendered its decision, seemed to be rectifying a bottleneck in Superfund remediation of hazardous waste. However, in the decade since this Supreme Court decision, several federal trial and circuit courts have circumvented the Supreme Court command. This article illustrates how the lower federal courts have done this without violating Article III of the Constitution, by re-defining a one-word term. The practical impact has been chaos in hazardous substance remediation across the U.S., affecting an estimated 600,000 contaminated waste sites. There are huge dollar impacts: addressing the 350,000 remaining contaminated sites in the U.S. would cost up to one-quarter trillion dollars, or an expenditure of $6-8 billion annually. This Article analyzes how the lower federal courts have circumvented the Supreme Court decisions, with particular focus on decisions and legal prestidigitation in the most recent four years. This lower court inversion of the law is without much basis in law, and resurrects exactly what the Supreme Court thought it had overruled unanimously. What transpired in enforcement in the lower courts is not what the Supreme Court’s opinion contemplated. This Article examines the method by which the lower federal courts have created an ongoing legal mechanism to circumvent the most important Supreme Court holding in a critical area of the economy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Gordan, John D. "Morse v. Reid: The First Reported Federal Copyright Case." Law and History Review 11, no. 1 (1993): 21–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/743598.

Full text

Abstract:

Scholarly treatments of the history of early federal copyright litigation have overlooked what may be the earliest and must certainly be the most interesting decision of the period—Morse v. Reid, decided in the United States Circuit Court for the District of New York on April 4 and 6, 1798. Absent its identification in Wilfred J. Ritz's invaluable American Judicial Proceedings First Printed Before 1801, Morse v. Reid would probably remain unknown.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Lunney,, Glynn S. "Patent Law, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court: A Quiet Revolution." Supreme Court Economic Review 11 (January 2004): 1–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/scer.11.3655325.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Wegner, Harold C. "Vornado Tornado: End to Exclusive Appellate Patent Jurisdiction at the Federal Circuit." Biotechnology Law Report 21, no. 3 (June 2002): 252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/073003102760162327.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Macedo, C. R., M. J. Kasdan, and A. A. Bendory. "Federal Circuit clarifies three-step recapture rule for analysis of reissued claims." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 7, no. 9 (July 19, 2012): 637–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps108.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Macedo, Charles R., Jessica A. Capasso, and Kyung J. Shin. "On remand, Federal Circuit reaffirms single entity rule for divided, direct infringement." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 10, no. 11 (October 20, 2015): 808–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv155.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Coyne, Michael P., Richard Mason, and John R. Mills. "Contingent Legal Fees on Settlements and Awards and the Calculation of Gross Income by Individuals for United States Federal Income Tax Purposes." ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2004): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jltr.2004.2.1.1.

Full text

Abstract:

Lawsuits involving contingent legal fees are reasonably common. This paper focuses on the appropriateness of the inclusion in plaintiff's gross income for individual federal tax purposes of the portion of settlements going to attorneys for contingent legal fees. We present an example of the significant difference in taxes payable by a plaintiff under the two competing tax treatments. We also recap the current position of the various Circuit Courts on the issue using the opposing views of the Sixth to the Second and Seventh Circuits to frame a discussion of the issue and then discuss the treatment of securities classaction settlement proceeds that are apparently treated differently for tax purposes. The Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in two cases and will be addressing the inclusion of contingent legal fees in gross income. We advocate that although taking the broader Sixth Circuit approach of excluding contingent attorney's fees on a joint endeavor theory would lead to more equitable results for plaintiffs, it would not necessarily be prudent judicial action and that the appropriate remedy to the situation may best be Congressional action, as the Internal Revenue Service has consistently favored inclusion.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Vázquez, Carlos M. "Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp." American Journal of International Law 83, no. 3 (July 1989): 565–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203318.

Full text

Abstract:

Plaintiffs and respondents, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and United Carriers, Inc., were respectively the charterer and owner of the Hercules, a crude oil tanker that was bombed in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. The ship was severely damaged and had to be scuttled off the coast of Brazil. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in Argentina, the companies filed suit against defendant and appellant, the Argentine Republic, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350 (1982)), which confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) is by its terms the sole basis of federal jurisdiction over cases against foreign states. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (per Rehnquist, C.J.) unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and held that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis of federal jurisdiction over suits against foreign states.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Garbolino, James D. "II. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SETTLES THE NE EXEAT CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA: ABBOTT v ABBOTT." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59, no. 4 (October 2010): 1158–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589310000576.

Full text

Abstract:

In a 6–3 opinion the United States Supreme Court held, in its first case involving the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction2, that a ne exeat3 order confers a right of custody for a left behind parent, entitling that parent to maintain an action under the Convention. The decision reverses a 5th Circuit opinion4 which followed the rationale of CrollvCroll.5Croll held that a parent with visitation rights, coupled with a ne exeat clause, possessed only part of the ‘bundle of rights’6 which comprise ‘rights of custody’, and that such limited rights were insufficient to compel a return remedy under the 1980 Convention. The Supreme Court's decision settles a conflict among the federal circuits on this issue.7 Following the Croll rationale were Fawcett v. McRoberts,8 and Gonzales v Gutierrez.9 The 11th Circuit, however, in Furnes v. Reeves,10 held that a ne exeat provision in a Norwegian custody agreement conferred a right which would satisfy the Convention's definition of ‘custody rights’.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Macedo, Charles R., David P. Goldberg, and Chandler Sturm. "US Supreme Court finds authority held by administrative patent judges to be unconstitutional and mandates procedural cure to give USPTO Director more control." Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 16, no. 12 (December 1, 2021): 1293–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab155.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract United States v Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 US ____, slip opinion, United States Supreme Court, 21 June 2021 (Arthrex III) Arthrex, Inc. v Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F3d 1320 (Federal Circuit 2019) (‘Arthrex I’), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 953 F3d 760 (Federal Circuit 2020) (‘Arthrex II’), petition for certiorari filed On 21 June 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. finding that the authority of administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue Final Written Decisions without review by a superior is inconsistent with their appointment as inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court sought to cure this constitutional violation by giving the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office more control over the rulings of APJs.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Schisler, Dan L., and Andrew M. Wasilick. "Can a Casualty Loss Be Deducted in the Absence of Physical Damage?" ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 16, no. 2 (September 1, 2018): 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jltr-52271.

Full text

Abstract:

ABSTRACT When a casualty event (storm, fire, landslide, etc.) does not cause actual physical damage, can a casualty loss deduction be taken by a taxpayer for a permanent reduction in value? There are conflicting opinions by two federal circuit courts, and the definition of “permanent” is still largely undefined. The relevance of this issue is of increased importance with the numerous recent major casualties affecting the U.S. mainland and territories. The 9th Circuit has adamantly held that actual physical damage must occur to have a deductible casualty loss, whereas the 11th Circuit has held that a permanent decrease in value can qualify as a deductible casualty loss even with little or no actual physical damage to the property.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Drew, Kathi A., and R. K. Weaver. "Disproportionate or Excessive Punishments: Is There a Method for Successful Constitutional Challenges?" Texas Wesleyan Law Review 2, no. 1 (July 1995): 1–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/twlr.v2.i1.1.

Full text

Abstract:

This article will begin with a review of several United States Supreme Court cases, from the emanation of the doctrine in Weems v. United States' to the widely misread and misunderstood case of Harmelin v. Michigan. The article then examines the impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on the federal circuit courts as they relate to claims of disproportionality in prison sentences.' Next, the article explores some of the various state court opinions that have considered the issue of proportionality under federal constitutional guidelines and their own state constitutions. Finally, the article proposes an analytical structure to determine whether a sentence is disproportionate in an individual case.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

"Federal Circuit law trumps regional circuit law." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 3, no. 11 (November 2004): 902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd1571.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

McAlister, Merritt. "Rebuilding the Federal Circuit Courts." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3906841.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Rantanen, Jason. "The Federal Circuit Dataset Project." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3921275.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Dunham, Catherine Ross. "Class Actions in the Federal Circuit." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3022211.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Federal Circuit'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles