Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The jury trial is a fixture of modern patent litigation. Lawyers, scholars, and judges take for granted that when a patent case goes to trial, that trial will almost always be before a jury. 3 And that jury will decide most, though not all, of the significant issues in dispute-including whether the patent is valid. The dynamics of the jury system drive both the structure of patent litigation and its outcome. Jurors are more likely than judges to rule for patentees. Lay jurors are reluctant to second-guess the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and invalidate a patent the PTO has issued. And the fact that the parties are gearing up for a jury trial affects both the high cost of patent litigation, the structure of pretrial proceedings, and the willingness of the parties to settle and on what terms. This regime is built on an uncertain foundation. For while patent lawyers take for granted the power of the jury to decide whether the PTO made a mistake in issuing a patent, the role of the jury in patent cases is a recent and unusual phenomenon with a murky history.
The jury trial is a fixture of modern patent litigation. Lawyers, scholars, and judges take for granted that when a patent case goes to trial, that trial will almost always be before a jury. 3 And that jury will decide most, though not all, of the significant issues in dispute-including whether the patent is valid. The dynamics of the jury system drive both the structure of patent litigation and its outcome. Jurors are more likely than judges to rule for patentees. Lay jurors are reluctant to second-guess the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and invalidate a patent the PTO has issued. And the fact that the parties are gearing up for a jury trial affects both the high cost of patent litigation, the structure of pretrial proceedings, and the willingness of the parties to settle and on what terms. This regime is built on an uncertain foundation. For while patent lawyers take for granted the power of the jury to decide whether the PTO made a mistake in issuing a patent, the role of the jury in patent cases is a recent and unusual phenomenon with a murky history.
In the context of digitalization of the economy and the growing number of legal proceedings related to intellectual property objects, there is a need to form a forensic examination of intellectual property objects as a new type of expertise produced by state forensic institutions. In order to form this new direction, it is necessary to study foreign experience of using the expertise in such cases. Purpose: to study the experience of using the expertise in cases of intellectual property objects in some foreign countries. Results: general dialectical method, in particular methods of formal logic, a number of general scientific methods such as comparison, description, etc., as well as special scientific methods: formal-legal, comparative-legal. Conclusions: the study shows different approaches to the organization of legal proceedings using expertise in the courts of Germany, Japan, Ukraine and the United States. This foreign experience will help to form Russian approach to the forensic examination of intellectual property objects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.