How the JPML Can Benefit from the Federal Circuit and Vice-Versa

Nofal, Christopher (2012): How the JPML Can Benefit from the Federal Circuit and Vice-Versa. Published in: IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review , Vol. 52, No. 3 (December 2012): pp. 379-416.

Abstract

This article posits that the JPML and Federal Circuit, despite their range of differences, can benefit from one another and remedy each other’s complex institutional challenges. The Federal Circuit can eliminate the unfairness in multidistrict litigation practice and can guide multidistrict litigation by providing uniform federal precedent. Multidistrict litigation, which is as procedurally complex as it is substantively broad, can enable the Federal Circuit to speak on non-patent law and can position the circuit to see more clearly how patents affect the overall economy. Through these mutual benefits, these institutions can promote justice and cost-effectiveness for each litigant in every patent action and every MDL proceeding. To that end, this article proposes that Congress vest in the Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the JPML and MDL courts.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: JPML, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, courts, Federal Jurisdiction
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; K - Law and Economics > K1 - Basic Areas of Law > K10 - General

References

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 928 (9th ed. 2009).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (2010).

1 DANIEL R. COQUILLETTE, MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 1.21 (3d ed. 2010).

Fed. R. App. P. 1 (2010).

ROBERT P. MERGES & JOHN F. DUFFY, PATENT LAW AND POLICY: CASES AND MATERIALS 11 (4th ed. 2007).

35 U.S.C. § 100 (2010).

28 U.S.C. § 1295 (2010).

Robert P. Merges, Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 CAL. L. REV. 803, 822 (1988).

William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Elitism, Expediency, and the New Certiorari: Requiem for the Learned Hand Tradition, 81 CORNELL L. REV. 273, 319-20 (1996).

Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 8 (1989).

Carl I. Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate Telephone Rates, 51 HARV. L. REV. 846, 849 (1938).

Aaron Bayer, MDL Appeals, 27 NAT’L L. J. 43, 2 (2005).

Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1, 11 (2001).

Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Lecture — What the Federal Circuit Can Learn from the Supreme Court — and Vice Versa, 59 AM. U. L. REV. 787, 788 (2010).

Phil C. Neal, Multi-District Coordination - the Antecedents of 1407, 14 ANTITRUST BULL. 99, 99 (1969).

Mike Roberts, Multidistrict Litigation and the Judicial Panel, Transfer, and Tag-Along Orders Prior to a Determination of Remand: Procedural and Substantive Problem or Effective Judicial Policy?, 23 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 841, 844 (1993).

JAY TIDMARSH & ROGER A. TRANGSRUD, MODERN COMPLEX LITIGATION 132, 160 (2d ed. 2010).

Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 VA. L. REV. 1575, 1671-75 (2003).

RONALD DWORKIN, LAW’S EMPIRE 177 (1986).

Paul R. Gugliuzza, The New Federal Circuit Mandamus 9–18 (Univ. of Fla. Levin College of Law Research, Working Paper No. 2011-06), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1734419.

Martha C. Nussbaum, Forward: Constitutions and Capabilities: “Perception” Against Lofty Formalism, 121 HARV. L. REV. 5, 24–33 (2007).

Craig A. Nard & John F. Duffy, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 1619, 1639–40 (2007).