News & Events
|Hastings Law Journal hosted our annual symposium, From Bench to Society: Law and Ethics at the Frontier of Genomic Technology on February 8, 2013. For a list of speakers, registration information, and other information, please visit here.
Register Brochure Donate CLE Materials Live StreamingWe are also accepting articles for our Symposium Issue, Volume 64, Issue 6, August 2013. Please email Nithya Senra, Executive Symposium Editor.Thank you all who joined us for our Fall Alumni Mixer on November 8th in the Skyroom of the Tower (100 McAllister) from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.Hastings Law Journal co-sponsored a panel on Redemption in the Law, on Thursday, September 6th, from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the ARC at 200 McAllister Ave. The panel discussion will feature Nancy Mullane, author of the new book, Life After Murder, and two of the previously incarcerated men featured in her book. The panelists will address the role of redemption in our legal system and discuss human capacity for change more broadly. The two main goals of this event are to (1) gain a better understanding of the real world application of criminal law and (2) evaluate what happens when individuals are tried, convicted, incarcerated, rehabilitated and released back into society. Co-sponsors include ASUCH, HRPLJ, HCLS, BLSA, HPO and HPILF. The contact for the event is Nayeli Maxson, ASUCH External Vice President. Email Facebook Event Page
Check out our student blog, On the Record, for legal news and events.
|The Long-Awaited Nationwide Mortgage Settlement: Only a Small Step Forward in the Struggle for Accountability in the Financial Crisis
After sixteen months of negotiation, state attorneys general and the federal government have reached agreement on a record joint state-federal settlement with the country’s five largest lenders—Ally Financial (formerly GMAC), Bank of America, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo—over improper foreclosure practices. The nationwide accord seeks to address banks’ misconduct that took place after the burst of the housing bubble. Some of the largest lenders in the country that process foreclosures issued improper mortgages, violated homeowners’ rights and protections, and used false affidavits. Bank employees did not properly verify documents; they signed papers they had not read or forged signatures to expedite foreclosing on homeowners, also known as “robo-signing” documents.
Announced in February, the deal consists of $25 billion in relief to distressed borrowers as well as direct payments to states and the federal government. While this is the largest multistate settlement since the Tobacco Settlement in 1998 and the largest consumer financial protection arrangement in U.S. history, one question remains: is this settlement a comprehensive solution to the current foreclosure crisis?
Read Essay | Download as PDF
Current Issue – Volume 64, Issue 3
|Contract-Based Post-Sale Restrictions on Patented Products Following Quanta
Alfred C. Server and William J. Casey
Supreme Court decisions regarding the doctrine of patent exhaustion have drawn a bright line for determining when patent exhaustion occurs. If a sale of a patented product is authorized, exhaustion occurs. If a sale is not authorized, there is no exhaustion and patent remedies remain available to the patent holder to enforce a breach of a contractual restriction placed by the patent holder on the buyer of its patented product. But a lack of precision in the Supreme Court’s patent exhaustion jurisprudence has resulted in uncertainty regarding the scope and impact of patent exhaustion. Specifically, questions persist as to whether a patent holder can preserve its patent infringement remedies by placing a contract-based restriction on a buyer’s use or disposition of its patented product as a condition of the sale of the product and whether breach of contract remedies remain available to a patent holder if an authorized first sale is made and exhaustion occurs.
The Supreme Court’s failure to answer these questions in its latest decision regarding patent exhaustion has prompted the Authors of this Article to seek these answers through a review of the relevant case law, in order to provide guidance to the patent holder who intends to control the use or distribution of its patented product following a sale. On the basis of their review, which involves an analysis of the conflict between federal patent law and state contract law that occurs in the context of an authorized first sale of a patented product, the Authors contend that a patent holder is unable to preserve patent infringement remedies by conditioning the sale of its patented product, and that contractual remedies remain available in many cases even when patent exhaustion occurs. Further, the Authors propose a case-by-case approach to assessing whether a contract-based post-sale restriction on a patented product is enforceable under state contract law. This approach involves determining whether (i) an objective of federal patent law preempts enforcement of the contractual provision; (ii) the inclusion of the provision in a contract constitutes patent misuse; (iii) the provision violates federal antitrust law; and (iv) public policy considerations (that is, regarding public health and safety) militate in favor of enforcing the restriction. The Authors conclude by noting that the distinction between patent remedies and contract remedies has diminished in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the proper test for the granting of an injunction upon a finding of patent infringement is the traditional four-factor test used for non-patent causes of action.
|Through the Eyes of Jurors: The Use of Schemas in the Application of “Plain Language” Jury Instructions
|Consenting Under Stress
|Marriage Rights and the Good Life: A Sociological Theory of Marriage and Constitutional Law
Ari Ezra Waldman
|Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders
Aaron H. Caplan