State Regulation of Franchising: The Washington Experience

The successful use of franchising as an adjunct to more traditional marketing techniques by business firms seeking nationwide distribution for their products, services, and ideas has stimulated many franchisor abuses. Professor Chisum comprehensively discusses a variety of remedies available to the franchisee seeking relief from franchisor abuses, including remedies provided by the common law, federal and state securities laws, and the federal antitrust laws. The article assesses the relative success and failure of these general remedies in rectifying the specific problems of franchisor abuses. The author then critically examines the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act which was enacted in 1971 for the purpose of preventing such abuses. Professor Chisum presents his evaluation of the major provisions of the Act, highlighting those areas which are likely to produce litigation and those areas in which he believes the language of the Act may frustrate its purpose

The Supreme Court and Patent Law: Does Shallow Reasoning Lead to Thin Law

Prof. Chisum explains that the role of the Federal Circuit Court as the Supreme Court of patent law may be changing and notes the significance of recent United States Supreme Court cases addressing patent law issues. He evaluates the quality of recent landmark decisions in which the Court has examined patent issues. Prof. Chisum notes that the general attitude of the Court reflects skepticism and hostility toward the patent system. He also considers the quality of reasoning undertaken by the Supreme Court and argues that, as opposed to the Federal Circuit, it is often weak, illogical, ambiguous, and inconsistent

Sources of Prior Art in Patent Law

The question of what is prior art involves at least four different dimensions. The first is the dimension of time. When does art become prior ? When, if ever, is it too old and forgotten to be considered prior art? The second is the dimension of place. The patent statutes make both United States and foreign patents and publications prior art, but limit knowledge, use, and invention to in this country. When is something in this country, and why is this distinction made? The third is the dimension of scope. What is the pertinent art to which the invention pertains? How far into analogous fields can one look to find prior art? Interesting as all of these questions are, this article will focus primarily on the fourth dimension of prior art—that of content. This dimension delineates the types of sources that may be cited and used as references in determining nonobviousness. As an empirical matter, the most commonly cited references are prior patents and publications. It is clear, however, that other types of material are also in the prior art

Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 336 (2005)

The current proposals to change the patent laws are described by proponents as patent law “reform.” In the 215 year history of the United States patent system, Congress has rarely purported to “reform” the system. Indeed, I am not sure that it has ever done so since the 1836 Act—or even since the 1793 Act. If we are to have “reform,” Congress should reform the system for the better of all concerned according to neutral principles