This book sets out governing statutes and rules at the beginning of each chapter and includes sample litigation documents where possible. The casebook begins with discussions of who to sue, where to sue, pleading requirements, discovery, and trial strategy. It then moves into substantive legal issues. The Third Edition includes new material on pharmaceutical litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the most developments in the law of invalidity and infringement. The book next addresses issues surrounding remedies, including injunctive relief (with a discussion of the Supreme Court's eBay decision), contempt proceedings, and damages. Also included are post-trial matters including jury instructions, special verdict forms, the preclusive effect of final judgments, judgment as a matter of law, and new trial motions. Finally, the book covers the appeal process and reexamination and reissue proceedings.

In order to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, all district and circuit court nominees must appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing. Despite their relatively low profile, these lower court judges make up 99 percent of permanent federal judgeships and decide cases that relate to a wide variety of policy areas. To uncover why senators hold confirmation hearings for lower federal court nominees and the value of these proceedings more generally, the authors analyzed transcripts for all district and circuit court confirmation hearings between 1993 and 2012, the largest systematic analysis of lower court confirmation hearings to date. The book finds that the time-consuming practice of confirmation hearings for district and circuit court nominees provides an important venue for senators to advocate on behalf of their policy preferences and bolster their chances of being re-elected. The wide variation in lower court nominees’ experiences before the Judiciary Committee exists because senators pursue these goals in different ways, depending on the level of controversy surrounding a nominee. Ultimately, the findings inform a (re)assessment of the role hearings play in ensuring quality judges, providing advice and consent, and advancing the democratic values of transparency and accountability.