Print

Patent Claim Construction

In 1998, the Federal Circuit decided Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, holding that patent claim construction was a purely legal issue subject to de novo appellate review. This highly controversial decision has since become the focus of intense scrutiny and empirical studies exposing the problematic nature of de novo review. In November 2006, the Federal Circuit issued a divided opinion indicating its most significant movement towards reconsidering Cybor, prompting some observers to forecast the impending demise of de novo review.

This Note introduces Chevron deference as the proper standard of review for patent claim construction. A default rule adopting the narrowest reasonable claim interpretation would serve as a valuable information-forcing adjunct. Together, these rules would simultaneously address the inefficiency, indeterminacy, and information costs that currently plague the patent system. Ultimately, this proposal would achieve sweeping, multi-institutional patent reform from both ex ante and ex post perspectives.

State Redistricting Law: Stephenson v. Bartlett and Judicial Promotion of Electoral Competition

This Note attempts to answer the question, “What can state courts do to solve problems in the legislative redistricting process?” To answer this question, the Note examines one recent case from the North Carolina Supreme Court, Stephenson v. Bartlett. At the time the suit was filed, the North Carolina redistricting process was already subject to many state and federal constitutional restraints, as well as the federal statutory restraints of the Voting Rights Act. Relying on a dubious interpretation of the state constitution’s equal protection clause and an elevation of “traditional redistricting principles” to the level of a constitutional mandate, the North Carolina Supreme Court took the opportunity to create even more restraints on legislative redistricting process. Whitaker examines possible justifications for the opinion, and after rejecting textualist, purposivist and partisan political explanations, explains the opinion as an attempt by the judiciary to increase electoral competition by reducing the discretion of the state legislature over redistricting.

Cities, Economic Development, and the Free Trade Constitution

The role of cities and local government generally has gone unexamined by legal scholars of the constitutional common market. Yet in a highly urbanized country in which cities and large metropolitan areas dominate the national economy, much of the cross-border movement of persons, goods, and capital inside the United States is more accurately characterized as inter-municipal rather than inter-state. This Article examines the constitutional rules that govern this cross-border movement from the perspective of the city. The Article argues that judges and commentators have misapprehended the jurisprudence of the American common market because they have been looking at its operation on the wrong scale. Examining how the doctrine operates at the municipal level exposes the gaps and contradictions in the jurisprudence, reveals connections between legal doctrines that heretofore had not been considered part of the free trade regime, and highlights the Supreme Court’s implicit (and under-theorized) urban economic policy. The reframing of the economic and jurisprudential place of cities in the free trade constitution sheds light on a number of important recent cases, in particular Kelo v. New London, in which the Court upheld a city’s use of eminent domain for economic development purposes under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Article’s city-centric approach also intervenes in a number of judicial and scholarly debates, including the appropriate reach and application of the “dormant” commerce clause, the appropriate judicial oversight of local land use regulations under the Takings Clause, and the role of courts in policing and shaping local economic development efforts more generally.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.