{
  "id": "RL31703",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31703",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101487,
      "date": "2003-01-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:59:53.895941",
      "title": "Patent Law and Innovation: The Creation, Operation and a Twenty-Year Assessment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit",
      "summary": "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (\"Federal Circuit\") is a specialized court with\nexclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent appeals. Congress established the Federal Circuit in 1982\nin order to promote predictability and uniformity in the patent law. Now that the Federal Circuit has\ncelebrated its twentieth anniversary, it is appropriate to consider the influence of the court upon\npatent law and, more generally, the climate for innovative industry within the United States.\n  A number of commentators believe that the Federal Circuit has strengthened the economic,\nlegal and commercial significance of patents to U.S. industry. \u00a0The Federal Circuit has\nbroadened\nthe subject matter which may be patented to include such innovations as computer software and\nbusiness methods. Some observers believe that in comparison to predecessor courts, the Federal\nCircuit has also made it more difficult to show that a patent is invalid because its subject matter\nwould have been obvious in light of the state of the art. The Federal Circuit is also said to have both\ndecreased the showing a patent owner must make in order to obtain a preliminary injunction against\naccused infringers and increased the monetary damages owed as a remedy for patent infringement.\n  The Federal Circuit has also attracted some negative commentary. Some commentators believe\nthat the concentration of patent cases in one court provides less chance for sound development of\nthe law through the contributions of many jurists. Because the Federal Circuit routinely encounters\npatent law issues, the pace of \"common law\" development in the patent field may be accelerated as\ncompared to other fields, possibly leading to less legal certainty. The Federal Circuit has also been\ndescribed as a \"booster\" of the patent law with a jurisprudence that favors patent owners and takes\na restrictive view of antitrust principles.\n  Recent developments continue to shape the Federal Circuit. The 1998 report of the\nCommission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals (known as the \"White\nCommission\") did not recommend any immediate changes to the makeup of the Federal Circuit, but\nit did suggest that the Federal Circuit may be able to assume jurisdiction over additional classes of\ncases for which national uniformity is desired. The 2002 Supreme Court decision in  Holmes\nGroup,\nInc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. , appears to have limited the exclusive appellate\njurisdiction of the Federal Circuit in patent cases.\n  Continued experience with the Federal Circuit may provide insights on the possible benefits\nof creating other specialized tribunals. Identification of the factors that make judicial specialization\ndesirable, as well as the impact of a specialized court upon the fields of law within its jurisdiction,\nmay guide future reforms to the federal judicial system. \n  This report will be updated as future developments require.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31703",
          "sha1": "ad169fc685e296a01993234d2bfffdbb28a38ab6",
          "filename": "files/20030121_RL31703_ad169fc685e296a01993234d2bfffdbb28a38ab6.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20030121_RL31703_ad169fc685e296a01993234d2bfffdbb28a38ab6.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}