Ipse Dixit

Share

Sarah Wasserman Rajec on the Property Law Misfit in Patent Law

Season 1, Ep. 245

In this episode, Sarah Wasserman Rajec, Associate Professor of Law at the College of William & Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law, discusses her new article The Property Law Misfit in Patent Law. She argues that in various circumstances, the animating principles of patent law are best served by departing from otherwise frequent reliance on property law analogies. In her article, Professor Rajec engages with a growing literature that revisits patent law’s place within property law. Using recent Supreme Court patent decisions that range in subject matter from remedies to commercial law to administrative adjudication, she concludes that property law is a useful starting point in patent law questions, but that the eventual answers often lie elsewhere. Professor Rajec’s article is forthcoming in the Cardozo Law Review. She is on Twitter at @SarahRajec.

This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Associate Professor in the School of Law and Associate Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at the Texas A&M University. Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors.

More Episodes

4/29/2022

Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted byBrian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at@brianlfrye.