000042076 000__ 03091cam\a22002535i\4500
000042076 001__ 42076
000042076 003__ SzGeWIPO
000042076 005__ 20240708145858.0
000042076 008__ 200625s2009\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000042076 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000042076 041__ $$aeng
000042076 1001_ $$aMenell, Peter S.
000042076 1001_ $$aPasahow, Lynn H.
000042076 1001_ $$aPooley, James H. A.
000042076 1001_ $$aPowers, Matthew D.
000042076 24503 $$aPatent Case Management Judicial Guide
000042076 264_1 $$a[Berkeley, California] :$$bUC Berkeley,$$c2009.
000042076 300__ $$a650 pages
000042076 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000042076 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000042076 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000042076 520__ $$aAs the number, size, and complexity of patent cases have grown throughout the United States over the past several decades - paralleling expansion in the role of high technology enterprises in the U.S. economy - the need for a comprehensive, user-friendly, and practical judicial guide for managing patent cases has become increasingly apparent. Although similar in many respects to other forms of complex civil litigation, patent cases pose distinctive case management challenges. Patent cases feature complex and dynamic technological facts to a degree rarely encountered in most other areas of litigation. Furthermore, they employ unique procedures (such as claim construction hearings) that affect and interact with other aspects of the case (such as summary judgment motions and expert reports) in ways that create unusual scheduling and substantive complexity. In addition, patent cases often entail distinctive and difficult discovery issues, extensive use of experts, and particularly complex dispositive and pre-trial motion practice.  Because of the decentralized, general jurisdiction structure of federal courts in the United States, much of the experience relating to managing patent cases is silo-ed in particular judicial chambers. As one jurist aptly noted, best practices for patent case management have been transmitted largely through word of mouth. Given the crowded, diverse dockets of federal courts, the accessibility and reliability of such knowledge is far from ideal. Judges in some districts have partially codified recommended practices in the form of Patent Local Rules, standing orders, and patent jury instructions, but these documents do not address the full range of distinctive challenges posed by patent litigation. Furthermore, such judicial wisdom continues to evolve.  Recognizing these patterns, the authors undertook in 2006 to survey the range of approaches and perspectives on patent case management, foster discussion and analysis of patent case management techniques, and develop an authoritative guide for judges, law clerks, practitioners, and patent and civil procedure professors and scholars. Given the dynamism of the patent system and patent litigation, the authors plan to revise the Guide on a biennial basis.
000042076 525__ $$aPublished in : UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, no. 1328659
000042076 650__ $$aPatent Settlement
000042076 650_0 $$aPatent
000042076 650_0 $$aPatent Case Management
000042076 650_0 $$aPatent Local Rules
000042076 650_0 $$aJury Instructions
000042076 85641 $$uhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1328659$$yView this resource
000042076 85641 $$uhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2637605$$yView the 3rd ed. (2016)
000042076 904__ $$aJournal article
000042076 980__ $$aBIB