The Application of High-Resolution Gamma-Ray Spectrometry (HRGS) to Nuclear Safeguards, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Activities

While well-developed methodologies exist for the employment of high- resolution gamma ray spectrometry (HRGS) in determining the isotopic composition of plutonium samples, the potential capabilities of such measurements in determining the properties of nuclear materials otherwise remain largely unexploited. These measurements contain information sufficiently detailed such that not only can the isotopic composition of uranium and plutonium materials be determined, but the details of the spectrum obtained will depend reproducibly upon other factors including the total mass, density, chemical composition, and geometrical configuration of the material, and for certain materials, the elapsed time since chemical processing. The potential thus exists to obtain a `gamma-ray fingerprint` for typical containers or assemblies of nuclear material which will then serve to identify that class of item in a later confirmatory measurement. These measurements have the additional advantage that, by comparison with active interrogation techniques which usually require the introduction of some extraneous form of radiation or other intrusive activity, they are totally passive, and thus impose only minimal additional safety or regulatory burdens on the operators. In the application of these measurements to the verification of treaty-limited items, where the information acquired may be sensitive in nature, the use of the CIVET (Controlled Intrusiveness Verification Technique) approach, where a computer-based interface is employed to limit access to the information obtained, may be followed

The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review

We survey the economic literature, both theoretical and empirical, on the choice of intellectual property protection by firms. Our focus is on the trade-offs between using patents and disclosing versus the use of secrecy, although we also look briefly at the use of other means of formal intellectual property protection. (JEL D82, K11, O31, O34) </jats:p

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit’s dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit’s dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system