The Supreme Court Saps Patent Certainty
The Honorable Paul R. Michel · November 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1751 (2014) This piece is based on the keynote address delivered at The George Washington Law Review‘s symposium entitled “Cracking the Code: Ongoing Section 101 Patentability Concerns in Biotechnology and Computer Software” on November 15, 2013.
Competing Visions of Patentable Subject Matter
Tun-Jen Chiang · November 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1858 (2014) Although many people disagree about whether various types of subject matter (e.g., human genes, diagnostic tests, or business methods) are or should be patentable, they ostensibly agree on the overarching framework within which the issue is analyzed. Almost everyone in legal debates—in courts... Read More
Debugging Software’s Schemas
Kristen Osenga · November 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1832 (2014) The analytical framework being used to assess the patent eligibility of software and computer-related inventions is fraught with errors, or bugs, in the system. A bug in a schema, or framework, in computer science may cause the system or software to produce... Read More
Patent Eligibility Post-Myriad: A Reinvigorated Judicial Wildcard of Uncertain Effect
Christopher M. Holman · November 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1796 (2014) In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions establishing the contours of patent eligibility—a judicially created doctrine that serves as a gatekeeper to prevent the patenting of subject matter deemed so fundamental as to be better... Read More
Flook Says One Thing, Diehr Says Another: A Need for Housecleaning in the Law of Patentable Subject Matter
John M. Golden · November 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1765 (2014) In a series of recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that there are substantial constraints on the categories of actions and materials for which patent protection may be afforded. But the Court has not provided clear instruction on how... Read More
Court-Agency Dialogue: Article III’s Dual Nature and the Boundaries of Reviewability
Emily Hammond · October 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. ARGUENDO 171 (2014) Courts reviewing agency actions frequently offer more than a positive analysis of the agencies’ decisions. They might engage in advice-giving, for example, or temper the remedy as a way of modulating the impact of review. These actions can be used in a dialogic way, to provide... Read More
GWLR Hosts “The FTC at 100” Symposium Featuring Justice Breyer
On November 7-8, 2014, the GW Law Review held its Annual Symposium. This year’s symposium, [addlink url=”http://www.gwlr.org/2014/10/01/ftc-symposium-2014/” text=”The FTC at 100: Centennial Commemorations and Proposals for Progress”], hosted in conjunction with GW Law Professor and former FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic, not only celebrated the successes of our nation’s oldest federal regulatory agency, but also confronted... Read More
Digital Marketing, Consumer Protection, and the First Amendment: A Brief Reply to Professor Ryan Calo
David C. Vladeck · October 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. ARGUENDO 156 (2014) Professor Ryan Calo’s meticulous critique of the potential for digital marketing to manipulate consumer choice is intended to be a wake-up call to regulators, policymakers, and consumers about the dangers lurking in a digital world. His arguments are powerful and persuasive. We... Read More
The Role of Daubert in Scrutinizing Expert Testimony in Class Certification
George G. Gordon and Irene Ayzenberg-Lyman · October 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. ARGUENDO 132 (2014) Courts have substantially heightened the standard of proof for class certification motions over the last several years. In 2011, the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes reaffirmed that Rule 23 requires a “rigorous analysis.” That analysis... Read More
The Post-Dukes “Rigorous Analysis” and Pre-Certification
Gerson H. Smoger and David M. Arbogast · October 2014 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. ARGUENDO 104 (2014) The Dukes “rigorous analysis” blurs the line between “certification” and “merits” discovery in class action litigation. Without adequate discovery, class counsel risk finding themselves without a sufficient record to survive appellate review of class certification orders. Class... Read More