San Diego Law Review
Document Type
Comment
Abstract
Part I of this Comment will analyze the background behind the creation of declaratory judgment jurisdiction, beginning with the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934. Part II will explain the significant relation between declaratory judgments and patent infringement, focusing on the recent development of the MedImmune and SanDisk decisions. Part III will then explore three potentially negative implications of the Federal Circuit’s SanDisk decision. Part IV argues that in light of recent cases, the expansion of declaratory judgment jurisdiction in MedImmune and SanDisk is not convincingly supported by the policy underlying patent declaratory judgment law. As a result, Part V recommends a new declaratory judgment jurisdiction test, to better balance the rights of potential infringers and patent holders, by encouraging district court judges to use discretion to decline declaratory judgment jurisdiction.
Recommended Citation
Greg Halsey,
There Is a Pink Elephant at Our Patent Negotiation, and His Name Is Declaratory Judgment,
46
San Diego L. Rev.
247
(2009).
Available at:
https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol46/iss1/9