Blockchain in the U.S. Regulatory Setting: Evidentiary Use in Vermont, Delaware, and Elsewhere

Joanna Diane Caytas* I. Introduction In February 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery faced a conundrum: following settlement of a shareholder action after a contested merger, shareholders representing 49,164,415 shares claimed settlement proceeds, but the class contained only 36,793,758 shares.[1] By definition, holders of over 12 million of these shares must have lacked entitlement to settlement disbursements, yet all claimant shareholders presented valid evidence of ownership. Investigation by class attorneys failed to establish the “current” Continue Reading →

Open Source Software and Standards Development Organizations: Symbiotic Functions in the Innovation Equation

Editor’s Note: This post was written by guest contributor David J. Kappos, a current partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, and former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Before heading up the USPTO, Mr. Kappos was a Vice President and Assistant General Counsel (focusing on IP issues) for IBM. Two groups—industry standards development organizations (SDOs) and the open source software (OSS) community—have contributed enormously to the breathtaking technological achievements of recent Continue Reading →

Inconsistent Judgments on the Breadth of CBM Review?

Guest Post by Jeffrey Berkowitz and Jonathan R.K. Stroud  | If you are looking for clarity on what qualifies as a “Covered Business Method” for review under Section 18 of the AIA (America Invents Act), the PTAB’s (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) decisions offer little guidance. Congress established the PTAB to provide a more effective, efficient, and consistent review of issued patents. But the PTAB has a ways to go as far as consistency is concerned. Continue Reading →

Guest Post: Confidence in Intervals and Diffidence in the Courts

This guest post comes to the STLR Blog from CLS Lecturer-in-Law Nathan A. Schachtman. He blogs regularly at http://schachtmanlaw.com/blog/. This post was originally published at that site and is available here. Next year, the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision will turn 20.  The decision, in interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 702, dramatically changed the landscape of expert witness testimony.  Still, there are many who would turn the clock back to disabling the gatekeeping function.  In past posts, I Continue Reading →