Two-particle renormalizations in many-fermion perturbation theory: Importance of the Ward identity

We analyze two-particle renormalizations within many-fermion perturbation expansion. We show that present diagrammatic theories suffer from lack of a direct diagrammatic control over the physical two-particle functions. To rectify this we introduce and prove a Ward identity enabling an explicit construction of the self-energy from a given two-particle irreducible vertex. Approximations constructed in this way are causal, obey conservation laws and offer an explicit diagrammatic control of singularities in dynamical two-particle functions.Comment: REVTeX4, 4 pages, 2 EPS figure

Rules v. Standards for Patent Law in the Plant Sciences

This article argues that US patent jurisprudence as applied to the plant sciences is moving to a second stage that will be characterized by more by incremental calibration than by spectacular change. The article discusses two doctrines of patent scope that are likely to be implicated in calibrating the utility patent system for the plant sciences: enablement and experimental use. It considers how those doctrines may be refined to serve as calibration tools in the application of patent law to the plant sciences

On Courts Herding Cats: Contending with the “Written Description” Requirement (and Other Unruly Patent Disclosure Doctrines)

This Essay explores the problem of incoherence among modern disclosure doctrines

Patent Abolitionism

In this Article, Professor Janis argues that modem enthusiasm for large-scale legislative reforms in patent law should be received with caution in view of the history of patent law reform. That history suggests that patent law is more resilient--or perhaps more impervious to change-than modem reformers recognize. To explore these propositions, Professor Janis analyzes the history of the mid-Victorian era British patent abolitionism movement. He demonstrates that much of the reform dialogue of that era, from the elucidation of major problems in the patent system, to the formulation of legislative solutions, mirrors quite closely the modem U.S. patent reform debate. He asserts that participants in the modern patent law reform debate should take this history to heart, approaching age-old proposals for large-scale legislative reform with healthy skepticism

Patent Law in the Age of the Invisible Supreme Court

This article examines the permanence of the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s retreat to the peripheries of patent law after the creation of the Federal Circuit, and explores the roles that the Supreme Court might imagine for itself in contemporary patent law. For discussion purposes, the article describes two hypothetical models for Supreme Court decisionmaking in patent cases: an aggressive interventionist model and an extreme non-interventionist model. After considering the shortcomings of both models, the article proposes an intermediate, managerial model. The managerial model rejects the proposition that the Court should intervene in patent cases to correct perceived substantive errors in Federal Circuit decisions. Instead, the model encourages the Court to manage disputes over the appropriate allocation of power among institutions of the patent system. Accordingly, the Court should intervene in patent cases that present such issues, and should direct its opinions towards resolving such issues, leaving the elaboration of detailed substantive patent doctrine to the Federal Circuit

Design Patent Nonobviousness: The Road Ahead?

In this Essay, I comment on Mark Bartholomew’s Article Nonobvious Design and link it to an important contemporary debate over the nonobviousness test for design patents in the en banc rehearing in LKQ. I begin by challenging the assertion that nonobviousness doctrine is the most compelling vehicle for design patent policy reform, suggesting that Nonobvious Design may be borrowing this thinking from utility patent law, where nonobviousness plays a different role. I then turn to Nonobvious Design’s elaboration of the concept of the “aesthetic middle,” which provides the chief impetus for the suggested nonobviousness reforms. I question the normative implications of using the aesthetic middle as the driver of patentability for designs. Finally, I take up the reforms to design patent nonobviousness suggested in Nonobvious Design, and those at issue in the LKQ case, and offer my views on how the court should rule in that case