These proposed reforms—particularly the restrictions on serial and parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) challenges and the requirement that petitioners stipulate to litigating validity in only one forum—represent an urgently needed course-correction to restore reliability to U.S. patent rights, strengthen American innovation, and fortify the nation’s technological leadership against foreign adversaries, especially the People’s Republic of China.

Innovation is not a predictable linear process that begins in a lab and ends with a finished product ready for “access planning.”

A patent-value “fee” operates as a direct tax on personal property. Without apportionment, it squarely violates the Constitution.

Insofar as the meaning of “the waters of the United States” is ambiguous, the Court should apply the canon of constitutional avoidance. The

The Committee for Justice filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in support of strong copyright protection for Lynn Goldsmith...

Curt Levey is quoted in Newsday in regard to Justice Jackson and her approach to property rights cases.

Curt Levey is quoted in Newsday in regard to Justice Jackson and her approach to property rights cases.