Rethinking Fairness: The Scope of Assignor Estoppel Doctrine After Minerva

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng Tong
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Case

Assignor estoppel, a common-law doc- trine, may prevent the former employee, as the patent assignor, from asserting the patent invalidity defense. The doctrine prevents unfair practices where, after assigning all the patent rights, the assignor claims the invalidity of the assigned patent such that she may exploit the invention without infringement. This article discerns the breadth of assignor estoppel doctrine and its implications after a recent Supreme Court case Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298 (2021).

A Comparative Analysis of the Protection of Trade Names Under the English Tort of Passing Off and Section 18 of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Surutchada REEKIE ◽  
Adam REEKIE
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Current Position ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Trade Names ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThe English common law tort of passing off came into the spotlight in 2015 with the UK Supreme Court case ofStarbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Groupsettling the current position regarding the question of the territorial scope of goodwill. This article undertakes a comparative study of the tort with Section 18 of theThai Civil and Commercial Codewhich, it argues, has been interpreted by the Thai Supreme Court to offer a materially similar remedy to the English tort in two important conceptual aspects: the requirement for misrepresentation and the so-called “hard line” approach to the territorial scope of goodwill, as affirmed byStarbucks. The analysis carries important implications for comparative lawyers and legislators in both the UK and Thailand, and challenges assumptions based on a simplistic categorization of Thailand as a civil law jurisdiction.

Definition

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Camper
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Single Term ◽  
Supreme Court Case

Chapter 3 explores the interpretive stasis of definition, where there is a question concerning the intended or appropriate scope of the basic sense of a term in a text. The chapter shows how rhetors, by persuasively articulating a definition and resorting to various lines of argument, can shift the meaning of passages and reframe controversies hinging on a text’s interpretation by adjusting the scope of a single term. But only linchpin terms (similar to Burke’s and Weaver’s ultimate terms) have this governing quality. The chapter’s central example consists of oral arguments from the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago that ultimately determined US citizens have a fundamental right to bear arms. The case partly rested on whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase privileges or immunities, generally protected from state infringement, includes this right within its scope. The centrality of definitional disputes to legal interpretation is also considered.

Video as Text/Archive

2019 ◽  
pp. 778-797
Author(s):  
Bennett Capers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Surveillance Cameras ◽  
American Law ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Protections

This chapter focuses on a few issues related to video evidence and law, especially with respect to American law. The first issue is the history of the use of video evidence in court. The second issue involves constitutional protections regarding the state’s use of surveillance cameras. The chapter then turns to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris to raise concerns about the use of video evidence as not just proof but “truth.” These are of course just a sampling of the issues that the topic of video evidence could raise. The hope is that this chapter will spur further inquiry on the part of the reader.

Toward an Actor-Based Measure of Supreme Court Case Salience

2012 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 804-818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan C. Black ◽  
Maron W. Sorenson ◽  
Timothy R. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Supreme Court Case
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document