New Particles from Belle

I report recent results on hidden charm spectroscopy from Belle. These include: observation of a near-threshold enhancement in the omega-J/psi invariant mass distribution for exclusive B-->K omega J/psi decays; evidence for the decay X(3872)-->pi+pi-pi0 J/psi, where the pi+pi-pi0 invariant mass distribution has a strong peak between 750 MeV and the kinematic limit of 775 MeV, suggesting that the process is dominated by the sub-threshold decay X-->omega J/psi; and the observation of a peak near 3940 MeV in the J/psi recoil mass spectrum for the inclusive continuum process e+e- --> J/psi X. The results are based on a study of a 287 fb-1 sample of e+e- annihilation data collected at center- of-mass energies around the Upsilon(4S) in the Belle detector at the KEKB collider.Comment: 10 pages 12 figures. Invited talk at the 1st meeting of the APS Topical Group on Hadronic Physics, Fermilab, October 24-26, 2004; revised to correct some reference

A Follow-up Study of Ninth Grade Students in the Omaha, Nebraska Public Schools Who Were Expelled for the Use, Possession, or Sale of Marijuana During the 1977-78 School Year

The Select Committee on Crime reported that the youth of the nation are suffering from a deadly disease; a dependency upon drugs. The youth are being decimated and slowly destroyed by a drug epidemic. The drug crises in the schools greatly exceeded the worst expectations

Precision Flavour Physics with B→KννˉB\to K\nu\bar\nu and B→Kl+l−B\to Kl^+l^-

We show that a combined analysis of $B\to K\nu\bar\nu$ and $B\to Kl^+l^-$ allows for new physics tests practically free of form factor uncertainties. Residual theory errors are at the level of several percent. Our study underlines the excellent motivation for measuring these modes at a Super Flavour Factory.Comment: 26 pages, 2 figure

Conceptual development of a ground-based radio-beacon navigation system for use on the surface of the moon

A spread-spectrum radio-beacon navigation system for use on the lunar surface is described. The subjects discussed are principle of operation and specifications to include power requirements, operating frequencies, weight, size, and range

Virtual Contacts in Patent Cases: How Should Internet-Related Contacts Affect the Personal Jurisdiction Analysis?

In the 1990s, when the Internet was still considered novel, courts struggled with the question of how Internet-related contacts should be treated in the personal jurisdiction analysis. So when Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo DOT Com established an apparently easy-to-apply test for deciding whether a defendant’s virtual contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction, many courts embraced it . To date, however, the Federal Circuit has neither adopted nor rejected the Zippo approach, leaving litigants and lower courts in patent cases with little guidance on the issue. Although a recent decision suggests that the Federal Circuit recognizes the limitations of Zippo, it is time for the court to set forth clear guidelines for analyzing questions of personal jurisdiction in patent cases when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are limited to Internet activity

Standing to Sue in the Myriad Genetics Case

In recent years, the topic of gene patents has generated significant debate among medical researchers, biotechnology companies, academics, policymakers, and patent lawyers. The controversy implicates a wide range of legal and policy questions, including whether human genes should be patentable, and whether such patents stimulate or stifle innovation. In Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, a high-profile case recently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a divided panel of the court addressed these questions. Before reaching the merits of the case, however, the court had to decide whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue the patent owner for declaratory relief. Although scholars and other commentators have discussed at length the substantive issues raised by the Myriad case, little has been said about this crucial procedural question. This Essay explores the question of standing in the Myriad case, specifically, and in patent declaratory judgment actions more generally. In Myriad, the Federal Circuit concluded that only one of the twenty plaintiffs had standing to sue. While this was sufficient for the case to proceed, this Essay critically examines the Federal Circuit\u27s approach to standing in Myriad. The Essay argues that the court misinterpreted and misapplied Supreme Court precedent, thus adopting a formalistic and overly narrow test for standing. The Essay urges the Supreme Court, if presented with the opportunity, to grant certiorari in Myriad to reconfirm its holding in MedImmune v. Genentech that standing in patent declaratory judgment actions must be analyzed under the all the circumstances test, not according to bright line rules. Finally, the Essay concludes by underscoring the importance of declaratory judgment actions to our patent system. The Supreme Court consistently has adopted legal standards that facilitate patent declaratory relief actions because of the public benefit afforded when bad patents are invalidated. The Federal Circuit, too, should consider its obligation to the public when deciding the justiciability of patent declaratory judgment actions

The Future of Internet-Related Personal Jurisdiction After Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. McIntyre v. Nicastro

For the past two decades, courts have struggled with the question of how Internet-related contacts should be treated in the personal jurisdiction analysis. Some courts have utilized the traditional minimum contacts framework of International Shoe v. Washington , while others have devised new tests to accommodate this technological evolution. So when the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two personal jurisdiction cases last term— Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. McIntyre v. Nicastro — many believed these unsettled questions of Internet related personal jurisdiction would finally be resolved. Disappointingly for litigants, lower courts, and academics, however, Goodyear and McIntyre give little guidance about the future of personal jurisdiction in our virtual world

Personal Jurisdiction and the Fairness Factor(s)

It has been more than seventy-five years since the Supreme Court decided International Shoe Co. v. Washington, yet questions surrounding the personal jurisdiction doctrine loom large. Over the past decade, the Roberts Court has issued a handful of personal jurisdiction opinions, including Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, a case decided in 2021 that addressed an issue related to specific jurisdiction. What is more, courts across the country, including several state supreme courts, have been grappling with the question whether a corporation’s registration to do business constitutes consent to personal jurisdiction in that state. This consent issue is particularly divisive in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania—where jurisdiction via registration is expressly provided for by statute. Indeed, over the past two years the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the exercise of consent jurisdiction in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. McCall, while the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania struck down its statute as unconstitutional in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The conflicting decisions in McCall and Mallory have now teed up the consent-by-registration question for the U.S. Supreme Court. Under International Shoe’s bifurcated test, personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants comports with due process when the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the state and the exercise of jurisdiction is fair or reasonable. Until recently, the Roberts Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence relegated the fairness prong of this test to, at most, an afterthought. However, Ford bucks that trend, providing hope that courts will once again turn to fairness considerations when making tough calls on jurisdiction. Using Ford as a launching pad, this Article argues that fairness—specifically, the fairness factors first articulated in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson—should be part of every jurisdictional calculus, whether the plaintiff is relying on specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction, or one of the traditional grounds for personal jurisdictional such as consent by registration. Applying a uniform methodology to the flexible due process standard will improve the consistency and predictability of personal jurisdiction determinations over time, while still allowing courts to decide these questions on a case-by-case basis

Patent Law as Public Law

Historically, patent litigation has been viewed and treated primarily as private law litigation, as opposed to public law litigation. This paradigm has begun to shift, however, as various stakeholders have come to acknowledge the profound impact that the patent system – and particularly invalid patents – have on the public at large. Yet, in order for a public law regime to succeed, there must be a host of enforcement mechanisms available, including the opportunity for privately-initiated litigation. Public interest organizations have played a prominent role in the enforcement of certain public rights, such as free speech, equal protection, and environmental laws. While such organizations showed little interest in the patent system in the past, change is afoot. In recent years, public interest organizations like the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation have initiated large-scale litigations pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act challenging the validity of patents relating to human genes and genetically-modified seed. Like many plaintiffs before them, though, these organizations have discovered that the Federal Circuit’s patent declaratory judgment jurisprudence makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to challenge potentially invalid patents. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom that patent litigation is private law litigation, and argues that patent litigation is more properly treated as public law litigation. The Article aims to show that the primary normative goal of the patent system, as contemplated by the constitution itself, is to benefit the public by “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” The Federal Circuit nevertheless has viewed patent declaratory judgment actions through the lens of a private law model, and consequently fashioned doctrine that improperly elevates the rights of private parties above those of the public. This Article contends that the Federal Circuit’s approach to standing and personal jurisdiction, in particular, has created significant procedural obstacles that often lead to the early dismissal of patent declaratory judgment actions. Because the merits of these suits are left unaddressed, invalid patents remain in force and the public is harmed. This Article proposes that this flawed doctrinal architecture will be fixed once the Federal Circuit recognizes and treats patent validity challenges as public law litigation, as many other participants in the patent system have already done

Against Settlement of (Some) Patent Cases

For decades now, there has been a pronounced trend away from adjudication and toward settlement in civil litigation. This settlement phenomenon has spawned a vast critical literature beginning with Owen Fiss’s seminal work, Against Settlement. Fiss opposes settlement because it achieves peace rather than justice, and because settlements often are coerced due to power and resource imbalances between the parties. Other critics have questioned the role that courts play (or ought to play) in settlement proceedings, and have argued that the secondary effects of settlement – especially the lack of decisional law – are damaging to our judicial system. Still, despite these criticisms, settlement remains the norm in civil litigation today. This Article considers the settlement phenomenon in the context of patent litigation. In recent years, courts have seen an explosion of patent litigation. Consistent with the general trend in civil litigation, most of those patent suits have been resolved through settlement. While scholars have studied and debated “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” patent settlements in depth, what is missing from the literature is a comprehensive treatment of the normative questions raised by the widespread settlement of conventional patent cases. Do conventional patent settlements necessarily promote the public good? Should courts be encouraging these patent disputes to settle? Are there certain types of patent cases that should be adjudicated rather than settled? This Article sets out to answer these questions. It begins by contextualizing the anti-settlement arguments of Fiss and other scholars within a patent litigation framework. The Article then identifies some of the unique problems created by patent settlements, namely that settlement allows potentially invalid patents to remain in force in contravention of the public good. Next the Article canvasses the caselaw and literature and concludes that the judiciary systematically encourages patent litigants to settle. The final part of the Article argues that settlement is not the best way to resolve all patent disputes from a social welfare perspective, and proposes that trial judges serve as protectors of the public interest. It then recommends various factors to inform the decision whether a particular patent case should settle or be adjudicated, and offers suggestions for how trial courts might influence patent litigation outcomes