Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:07:09.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Specialization, Litigant Influence, and Substantive Policy: The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2024

Lawrence Baum
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Several courts of limited jurisdiction currently exist in the federal judicial system, and new specialized courts have been proposed. Opponents of some specialized courts have pointed to the potential policy implications of judicial specialization, and their arguments merit attention. In this article the effects of specialization on the influence of litigant groups over judicial decisions and on the substance of judicial policy are analyzed in general terms. These effects are then examined in greater depth through a case study of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. The findings are complex, but they indicate that specialization may have a significant impact on judicial behavior. This impact should be taken into account in decisions whether to create courts of limited jurisdiction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , Summer 1977 , pp. 823 - 850
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

I wish to thank Richard Abel, Austin Sarat, Martin Shapiro, Lane Sunderland, and Stephen Wasby for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Harold Chase for sharing his insights on judicial selection.

References

APLA BULLETIN (1965) “Chemical Practice,” APLA Bulletin 301.Google Scholar
BATOR, Paul M., Paul J., MISHKIN, David L., SHAPIRO, and Herbert, WECHSLER (1973) Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System (2d ed.). Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
BERGER, Raoul (1960) “Removal of Judicial Functions from Federal Trade Commission to a Trade Court: A Reply to Mr. Kintner,” 59 Michigan Law Review 199.Google Scholar
BERNSTEIN, Marver H. (1955) Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400878789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLUMBERG, Abraham (1967a) Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, Abraham (1967b) “The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game,” 1 Law & Society Review 15.Google Scholar
BNA PATENT JOURNAL (1973) “ABA Patent Section Debates Patent Reform,” 140 BNA Patent Journal AA1.Google Scholar
BNA PATENT JOURNAL (1974) “Judge Rich Appeals for Clearer Revisers’ Notes,” 181 BNA Patent Journal A15.Google Scholar
BORKIN, Joseph (1962) The Corrupt Judge. New York: Clarkson N. Potter.Google Scholar
BROWN, R. S. and Robert L., WHITMIRE (1966) “Forum Reform: Tax Litigation,” 35 University of Cincinnati Law Review 644.Google Scholar
CHASE, Harold W. (1972) Federal Judges: The Appointing Process. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW (1945) “Recent Developments in the Law of Patents under Thurman Arnold,” 45 Columbia Law Review 422.Google Scholar
DAHL, Robert A. (1963) Modem Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
DAVIS, James F. (1972) “Patentee Trial Advocacy: Some Views from the Quiet Side of the Bench,” 1 APLA Quarterly Journal 65.Google Scholar
DIENNER, John A. (1950) “Patent Law Associations,” 32 Journal of the Patent Office Society 828.Google Scholar
DITLOW, Clarence M. III (1971) “Judicial Review of Patent Office Action: A More Rational Review System,” 53 Journal of the Patent Office Society 205.Google Scholar
DIX, George E. (1964) “The Death of the Commerce Court: A Study in Institutional Weakness,” 8 American Journal of Legal History 238.Google Scholar
DÜNNER, Donald R. (1972) “Court Review of Patent Office Decisions— Comparative Analysis of CCPA and District Court Actions,” in Institute on Patent Law (ed.) 1972 Patent Law Annual. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
DÜNNER, Donald R. (1976) Patent Law and Practice, vol. 4. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
FELLMETH, Robert (1970) The Interstate Commerce Omission: The Public Interest and the ICC. New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
FENNING, Karl (1931) “Court of Customs and Patent Office [sic] Appeals,” 17 American Bar Association Journal 323.Google Scholar
FOOTE, Caleb (1956) “Vagrancy-Type Law and Its Administration,” 104 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 603.Google Scholar
FORTAS, Abe (1971) “The Patent System in Distress,” 14 Idea 571.Google Scholar
FRANKFURTER, Felix and James M., LANDIS (1928) The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
FRIENDLY, Henry J. (1973) Federal Jurisdiction: A General View. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
FROMAN, Lewis A. Jr. (1966) “Some Effects of Interest Groups in State Politics,” 60 American Political Science Review 952.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL (1964) “The Utility Requirement in the Patent Law,” 53 Georgetown Law Journal 154.Google Scholar
GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL (1966) “The United States Court of Claims,” 55 Georgetown Law Journal 393.Google Scholar
GOLDMAN, Sheldon and Thomas P., JAHNIGE (1976) The Federal Courts as a Political System (2d ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
GORTON, Peter A. (1974) “The Fee System Courts: Financial Interest of Judges and Due Process,” 31 Washington and Lee Law Review 474.Google Scholar
GOULDEN, Joseph C. (1974) The Benchwarmers: The Private World of the Powerful Federal Judges. New York: Weybright and Talley.Google Scholar
GROSSMAN, Joel B. (1965) Lawyers and Judges: The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
GROSSMAN, Joel B. and Stephen, WASBY (1971) “Haynsworth and Parker: History Does Live Again,” 23 South Carolina Law Review 345.Google Scholar
HENKE, Michael J. (1966) “The Tax Court, the Proposed Administrative Court, and Judicialization,” 18 Baylor Law Review 449.Google Scholar
HURST, James Willard (1950) The Growth of American Law: The Lawmakers. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
JACOB, Herbert (1969) Debtors in Court: The Consumption of Government Services. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
JOHNSON, Jed (1954) “The United States Customs Court—Its History, Jurisdiction, and Procedure,” 7 Oklahoma Law Review 393.Google Scholar
KAYSEN, Carl and Donald F., TURNER (1959) Antitrust Policy: An Economic and Legal Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674863941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ϰα∊τ⊚ν, Irving (1970) The Crisis of Law in Patents. Washington, D.C.: Patent Resources Group.Google Scholar
KINTNER, Luis (1961) “Due Process of Economy: A Proposal for a United States Economy Court,” 15 University of Miami Law Review 341.Google Scholar
KOHLMEIER, Louis M. Jr. (1969) The Regulators: Watchdog Agencies and the Public Interest. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
LAWS, Bolitha J. (1944) “The Work of the United States Emergency Court of Appeals,” 10 Journal of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia 100.Google Scholar
LEMERT, Edwin M. (1970) Social Action and Legal Change: Revolution within the Juvenile Court. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
LIEBERSTEIN, Stanley H. (1969) “The CCPA: Evolution of an Activist Court,” 51 Journal of the Patent Office Society 477.Google Scholar
LIEBMAN, Charles (1955) Directory of American Judges. Chicago: American Directories.Google Scholar
LIPSCOMB, Ernest B. III (1968) “Appeals from Patent Office Decisions,” 50 Journal of the Patent Office Society 178.Google Scholar
LORCH, Robert S. (1967) “The Administrative Court Idea before Congress,” 20 Western Political Quarterly 65.Google Scholar
McCONNELL, Grant (1966) Private Power and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
McDONNELL, J.P. (1963) “Certiorari to and the Constitutional Status of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,” 45 Journal of the Patent Office Society 704.Google Scholar
MILBRATH, Lester (1963) The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
MINOR, Robert W. (1958) “The Administrative Court: Variations on a Theme,” 19 Ohio State Law Journal 380.Google Scholar
MOORE, Howard E. (1967) “Means Claims in the Patent Office and in the Courts,” in Cameron, Virginia Shook (ed.) 1967 Patent Law Annual. Albany: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
MOSIER, Marilyn Miller and Richard A., SOBLE (1973) “Modern Legislation, Metropolitan Court, Miniscule Results: A Study of Detroit's Landlord- Tenant Court,” 7 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 6.Google Scholar
MOULTON, Beatrice A. (1969) “The Persecution and Intimidation of the Low-Income Litigant as Performed by the Small Claims Court in California,” 21 Stanford Law Review 1657.Google Scholar
MURPHY, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
NADEL, Mark V. (1971) The Politics of Consumer Protection. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
NATHANSON, N.L. (1975) “The Administrative Court Proposal of the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization,” in Carrington, Paul D. et al. (eds.) Appellate Justice: 1975, vol. 4. San Diego: Advisory Council for Appellate Justice.Google Scholar
NAVASKY, Victor S. (1971) Kennedy Justice. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
OAKES, James L. (1973) “Developments in Environmental Law,” 3 Environmental Law Reporter 50001.Google Scholar
OLSON, Mancur (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674041660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REHBERG, Charles E. (1972) “Res Judicata in Patent Office Prosecution,” 54 Journal of the Patent Office Society 221.Google Scholar
REYNOLDS, Edwin L. (1960) “The Standard of Invention in the Patent Office,” in Ball, William B. (ed.) Dynamics of the Patent System. New York: Central Book Co.Google Scholar
RICH, Giles S. (1963) “Congressional Intent—Or, Who Wrote the Patent Act of 1952,” in Institute on Patent Law (ed.) Patent Procurement and Exploitation: Protecting Intellectual Rights. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs.Google Scholar
RICH, Giles S. (1968) “The Shifting Sands of Patent Law,” remarks before the Georgetown Patent Law Society, Arlington, Va., April 18.Google Scholar
RICH, Giles S. (1972) “Laying the Ghost of the ‘Invention’ Requirement,” 1 APLA Quarterly Journal 26.Google Scholar
RIFKIND, Simon (1951) “A Special Court for Patent Litigation? The Danger of a Specialized Judiciary,” 37 American Bar Association Journal 425.Google Scholar
RIGHTMIRE, George W. (1918) “Special Federal Courts,” 13 Illinois Law Review 15, 97.Google Scholar
ROSENTHAL, Douglas E. (1974) Lawyer and Client: Who's in Charge? New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
ROSS, H. Laurence (1970) Settled Out of Court: The Social Process of Insurance Claims Adjustment. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
SALISBURY, Robert H. (1969) “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” 13 Midwest Journal of Political Science 1.Google Scholar
SAYKO, Andrew F. (1967) “The Impact of the Supreme Court Section 103 Cases on the Standard of Patentability in the Lower Federal Courts,” 35 George Washington Law Review 818.Google Scholar
SAYRE, Wallace S. and Herbert, KAUFMAN (1960) Governing New York City: Politics in the Metropolis. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
SCIGLIANO, Robert (1971) The Supreme Court and the Presidency. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
SCOTT, Andrew and Margaret, HUNT (1965) Congress and Lobbies: Image and Reality. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
SHAPIRO, Martin (1968) The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
SMITH, Arthur M. (1961) “Muse of Fire,” 43 Journal of the Patent Office Society 701.Google Scholar
STRINGHAM, Emerson (1934) “Techniker und Juristen,” 16 Journal of the Patent Office Society 523.Google Scholar
SUMMERFORD, William A. (1973) The United States Court of Military Appeals: A Study in Judicial Process and Administration, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
TRUMAN, David B. (1951) The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
TWISS, Benjamin (1942) Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. CONGRESS, SENATE (1909) Congressional Record, 61st Cong., 1st sess., 44, pt. 4:4185–4225.Google Scholar
U.S. CONGRESS, HOUSE (1910) Congressional Record, 61st Cong., 2d sess., 45, pt. 5:5159.Google Scholar
U.S. CONGRESS (1973) Congressional Record, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., 119, pt. 10: 12810.Google Scholar
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1928) Change in Title of the United States Court of Customs Appeals, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, February 1. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. PATENT OFFICE (1941-75) Commissioner of Patents Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. SENATE (1957) Distribution of Patents Issued to Corporations (193955), prepared for the Committee on the Judiciary by P.J. Federico, S. Doc. 23. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. SENATE (1960) Report on Regulatory Agencies to the President-Elect, prepared for the Committee on the Judiciary by James M. Landis. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. SENATE (1961) The Examination System in the Patent Office, prepared for the Committee on the Judiciary by Eugene W. Gemesse, Study No. 29. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
VAUGHN, Floyd L. (1956) The United States Patent System: Legal and Economic Conflicts in American Patent History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW (1966) “The Justice of the Peace in Virginia: A Neglected Aspect of the Judiciary,” 52 Virginia Law Review 151.Google Scholar
VOSE, Clement E. (1958) “Litigation as a Form of Pressure Group Politics,” 319 Annals 20.Google Scholar
VOSE, Clement E. (1972) Constitutional Change: Amendment Politics and Supreme Court Litigation Since 1900. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
WATSON, Richard A. and Rondai G., DOWNING (1969) The Politics of the Bench and the Bar: Judicial Selection under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
WHITNEY, SCOTT S. (1973a) “The Case for Creating a Special Environmental Court System,” 14 William & Mary Law Review 473.Google Scholar
WHITNEY, SCOTT S. (1973b) “The Case for Creating a Special Environmental Court System—A Further Comment,” 15 William & Mary Law Review 33.Google Scholar
WILL, Hubert L. (1972) “The Patent System: One Man's View,” 1 APLA Quarterly Journal 49.Google Scholar
WORTHY, K. Martin (1971) “The Tax Litigation Structure,” 5 Georgia Law Review 248.Google Scholar
ZEIGLER, Harmon (1969) “The Effects of Lobbying: A Comparative Assessment,” 22 Western Political Quarterly 122.Google Scholar
ZEIGLER, Harmon and Michael, BAER (1969) Lobbying: Interaction and Influence in American State Legislatures. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar