Share |

Lighting Ballast, Anderson Study

Sep 21, 2013
Harold C. Wegner

Professor Christopher Cotropia's Parallel Study

page 1 of 1

Professor Anderson is not the only academic with a background that includes clerking at the Federal Circuit and practice at a major national patent firm:

"[C]laim interpretation[ ] is still truly de novo": Professor Christopher Cotropia of the University of Richmond with parallel credentials at the Federal Circuit and private practice has conducted a study that “indicate[s] that the Federal Circuit’s review of claim interpretations is still truly de novo and performed to correct lower court decisions (a) where patentees win and (b) especially where patents covering electronics, information technologies, and business methods succeed.” Abstract of Cotropia, Christopher A., Is Patent Claim Interpretation Review Deference or Correction Driven? (May 16, 2013) , available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265962 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2265962.

An Anti-Patentee Federal Circuit? An unstated conclusion difficult to avoid reaching is that the Federal Circuit is an increasingly anti-patentee forum for the industries identified in the summary.

Lighting Ballast vs Philips Electron
Lighting Ballast
Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics

Share |
Search
paid advertisement