CPIP is leading a new academic conversation about intellectual property rights and the technological, commercial, and creative innovation they facilitate. Through fellowship programs, research grants, academic conferences, and research symposia, we promote a healthy academic discussion, grounded in rigorous scholarship, that considers the value of patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights.

Below are some selected highlights.

Recent Highlights

Tabrez Y. Ebrahim, Artificial Intelligence Inventions & Patent Disclosure, 125 Penn. St. L. Rev. 147 (2020)

In his new Edison paper at Penn State Law Review, Artificial Intelligence Inventions & Patent Disclosure, Professor Tabrez Ebrahim of California Western School of Law claims that AI fundamentally challenges disclosure in patent law, which has not kept up with rapid advancements in AI, and seeks to invigorate the goals that patent law’s disclosure function is thought to serve for society. In so doing, Prof. Ebrahim assesses the role that AI plays in the inventive process, how AI can produce AI-generated output (that can be claimed in a patent application), and why it should matter for patent policy and for society. He also introduces a taxonomy comprising AI-based tools and AI-generated output that he maps with social-policy-related considerations, theoretical justifications and normative reasoning concerning disclosure for the use of AI in the inventive process, and proposals for enhancing disclosure and the impact on patent protection and trade secrecy.

Christa J. Laser, Equitable Defenses in Patent Law, 75 U. Miami L. Rev. 1 (2020)

In patent law, equitable defenses can play an essential role in multi-million-dollar patent infringement cases. Unclean hands, misuse, or estoppel can render a potential verdict unenforceable. Professor Christa Laser of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law dives into the unique and unsettled role of equity in her new Edison paper, Equitable Defenses in Patent Law, which is forthcoming at the University of Miami Law Review. Prof. Laser compares two theories to determine how courts might interpret undefined language governing equitable defenses in patent statutes, and she analyzes whether Congress codified preexisting decisional law or expanded it with the 1952 Patent Act. Finally, Prof. Laser suggests that Congress could delegate its authority to an agency to handle the ever-changing patent landscape.

Talha Syed, Owning Knowledge: A Unified Theory of Patent Eligibility (forthcoming)

In his new draft Edison paper, Owning Knowledge: A Unified Theory of Patent Eligibility, Professor Talha Syed of Berkeley Law argues that the confusion surrounding patentable subject matter under Section 101 is two-fold. First, it results from our failure to develop a functionality doctrine that can clearly distinguish technological applications of knowledge from other forms of knowledge. Second, he offers a root cause of this failure. There is a distracting preoccupation in patent law with “physicalism,” that is, the notion that a patent is awarded for a thing (tangible or not) rather than for knowledge of that thing. In order to move forward, Prof. Syed states that we must first unwind the physicalist assumptions that are tangled up in our Section 101 analyses. Only then can we develop a functionality doctrine free of those encumbrances.

Deepak Hegde, Joan Farre-Mensa, & Alexander Ljungqvist, What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”, 75 J. Finance 639 (2020)

Deepak Hegde of New York University and co-authors Joan Farre-Mensa and Alexander Ljungqvist have published a new paper from our Edison Fellowship program entitled What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery” in the Journal of Finance. The paper provides empirical evidence that startups that obtain their first patent have, on average, 55% higher employment growth and 80% higher sales growth five years later. Utilizing a unique dataset drawn on unprecedented access to USPTO internal databases, the study also shows with causal evidence that these startups pursue more—and higher quality—follow-on innovation as the first patent boosts innovation by facilitating their access to funding.

Olena Ivus, Edwin L.-C. Lai, & Ted M. Sichelman, An Economic Model of Patent Exhaustion, 29 J. Econ. & Manag. Strategy 816 (2020)

CPIP Senior Scholar Ted Sichelman of the University of San Diego, along with Olena Ivus and Edwin Lai, have published a new paper in the Journal of Economics & Management Strategy entitled An Economic Model of Patent Exhaustion. The paper, which comes from our Edison Fellowship program, uses a sophisticated economic model to show that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Impression Products v. Lexmark, mandatory patent exhaustion can be highly inefficient, particularly when transaction costs are low. The authors show that it is socially optimal for patent owners to be able to opt-out of exhaustion via contract when the social benefits from buyer-specific pricing outweigh the social costs from transaction cost frictions in individualized licensing.

Selected Scholarship A to Z

Ryan Abbott, Everything is Obvious, 66 UCLA L. Rev. 2 (2018) [SSRN]

Kristina M.L. Acri, Economic Growth and Prosperity Stem from Effective Intellectual Property Rights, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 865 (2017)

Sandra Aistars, Ensuring Only Good Claims Come In Small Packages: A Response To Scholarly Concerns About A Proposed Small Copyright Claims Tribunal, 26 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 65 (2018) [SSRN]

Sandra Aistars, Devlin Hartline, & Mark Schultz, Copyright Principles and Priorities to Foster a Creative Digital Marketplace, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 769 (2016) [SSRN]

Jonathan H. Ashtor, The Case for Patent Clarity (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Jonathan H. Ashtor, Does Patented Information Promote the Progress of Technology?, 113 Nw. U. L. Rev. 943 (2019) [SSRN]

Jonathan H Ashtor, Investigating Cohort Similarity as an Ex Ante Alternative to Patent Forward Citations, 16 J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 848 (2019) [SSRN]

Jonathan H. Ashtor, Opening Pandora’s Box: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Patent Litigation, 18 Yale J. L. & Tech. 217 (2016) [SSRN]

Jonathan H. Ashtor, Redefining “Valuable Patents”: Analysis of the Enforcement Value of U.S. Patents, 18 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 497 (2015)

Jonathan H. Ashtor, Michael J. Mazzeo, & Samantha Zyontz, Patents at Issue: The Data Behind the Patent Troll Debate, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 957 (2014)

Robert D. Atkinson, IP Protection in the Data Economy: Getting the Balance Right on 13 Critical Issues (Info. Tech. & Innov. Found. Jan. 2019) [SSRN]

David B. Audretsch, Scientific Entrepreneurship: The Stealth Conduit of University Knowledge Spillovers, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1015 (2014)

Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Privative Copyright, 73 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2020) [SSRN]

Matthew Barblan, Copyright as a Platform for Artistic and Creative Freedom, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 793 (2016) [SSRN]

Jonathan M. Barnett, Antitrust Overreach: Undoing Cooperative Standardization in the Digital Economy, 25 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 163 (2019) [SSRN]

Jonathan M. Barnett, From Patent Thickets to Patent Networks: The Legal Infrastructure of the Digital Economy, 55 Jurimetrics J. 1 (2014) [SSRN]

Jonathan M. Barnett, How and Why Almost Every Competition Regulator Was Wrong About Standard-Essential Patents (CPI Antitrust Chron. Dec. 2020)

Jonathan M. Barnett, Innovators, Firms, and Markets: The Organizational Logic of Intellectual Property (Oxford Univ. Press 2021)

Jonathan M. Barnett, ‘Patent Tigers’ and Global Innovation, 42 Regulation 14 (2020) [SSRN]

Jonathan M. Barnett, Patent Tigers: The New Geography of Global Innovation, 2 Criterion J. on Innovation 429 (2017) [SSRN]

Christopher Beauchamp, The First Patent Litigation Explosion, 125 Yale L.J. 848 (2016) [SSRN]

Maurizio Borghi, Copyright, Property, and Personality: Note on Hegel (forthcoming)

Maria Bottis, Utilitarianism v. Deontology: A Philosophy for Copyright (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Jennifer Brant & McLean Sibanda, South Africa: IP Management and the Commercialization of Publicly Funded Research Outcomes (World Intell. Prop. Org. 2018)

Hugh Breakey, Deliberate, Principled, Self-Interested Law Breaking: The Ethics of Digital ‘Piracy’, 38 Oxf. J. Leg. Stud. 676 (2018) [SSRN]

Emily S. Bremer, The Exceptionalism Norm in Administrative Adjudication, 2019 Wis. L. Rev. 1351 (2019) [SSRN]

Stuart N. Brotman, Intersecting Points in Parallel Lines: Toward Better Harmonization of Copyright Law and Communications Law Through Statutory and Institutional Balance, 26 Rich. J.L. & Tech., no. 3, 1 (2020)

Daniel R. Cahoy, Patently Uncertain, 17 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2019) [SSRN]

Eric R. Claeys, Claim Communication in Intellectual Property: A Comment on Right on Time, 100 B.U. L. Rev. Online 4 (2020)

Eric R. Claeys, The Conceptual Relation Between IP Rights and Infringement Remedies, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 825 (2015) [SSRN]

Eric R. Claeys, Intellectual Property and Practical Reason, 9 Jurisprudence 251 (2017) [SSRN]

Julie E. Cohen, Everything Old Is New Again—Or Is It?, in Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019)

Jorge L. Contreras, Narratives of Gene Patenting, 43 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1133 (2016) [SSRN]

Christopher A. Cotropia & James Gibson, Copyright’s Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation, 92 Tex. L. Rev. 1981 (2014) [SSRN]

Carys J. Craig, Critical Copyright Law and the Politics of ‘IP’, in Research Handbook on Critical Legal Theory (Emilios Christodoulidis, Ruth Dukes, & Marco Goldoni eds., 2019) [SSRN]

Brian Cummings, The Changing Landscape of Intellectual Property Management as a Revenue-Generating Asset for U.S Research Universities, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1027 (2014)

James E. Daily & F. Scott Kieff, Benefits of Patent Jury Trials for Commercializing Innovation, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 865 (2014)

Brett Danaher & Michael D. Smith, Digital Piracy, Film Quality, and Social Welfare, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 923 (2017)

Loletta Darden, Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights: Fair or Foul?, ___ Colum. J.L. & Arts ___ (forthcoming 2021)

Ross E. Davies, Ebb and Flow in Safe Harbors: Some Exemplary Experiences Under One Old Statute and One New (Ctr. for the Prot. of Intell. Prop. Sept. 2020)

Charles Delmotte, The Case Against Tax Subsidies in Innovation Policy, 48 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2020) [SSRN]

Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Notice Failure Revisited: Evidence on the Use of Virtual Patent Marking (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Emilio Raiteri, & Rudi Bekkers, Discrimination in the Patent System: Evidence from Standard-Essential Patents (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Gerardo Con Diaz, Computation and Materiality in American Patent Law: The Story of Halliburton v. Walker, 1935-1946, ___ Enterp. & Soc. ___ (forthcoming 2020)

Gregory Dolin, Dubious Patent Reform, 56 B.C. L. Rev. 881 (2015) [SSRN]

Gregory Dolin, Yes, The PTAB is Unconstitutional, 17 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 457 (2018)

Abraham Drassinower, Death in Copyright: Remarks on Duration, 99 B.U. L. Rev. 2559 (2019) [SSRN]

Tabrez Y. Ebrahim, Artificial Intelligence Inventions & Patent Disclosure, 125 Penn. St. L. Rev. 147 (2020) [SSRN]

Tabrez Y. Ebrahim, Intellectual Property from a Non-Western Lens: The Case of Patents in Islamic Law, 37 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2021)

Richard A. Epstein, Keynote Address: Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 805 (2015)

Kristelia A. Garcia, Facilitating Competition by Remedial Regulation, 31 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 183 (2016)

Damien Geradin, The Meaning of “Fair and Reasonable” in the Context of Third-Party Determination of FRAND Terms, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 919 (2014) [SSRN]

Roya Ghafele & Rasmus Kamstrup Bogetoft, Using Patent Valuation Methods to Assess Damages in Patent Infringement Cases Under the Unified Patent Court, 52 World Pat. Info. 1 (2018)

Tomás Gómez-Arostegui & Sean Bottomley, The Traditional Burdens for Final Injunctions in Patent Cases C.1789 and Some Modern Implications, 71 Case W. Res. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2020) [SSRN]

Gregory Gorder, Innovation and the Invention Gap: The Need for a New Invention Economy, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 811 (2014)

Michael S. Greve, Exceptional, After All and After Oil States: Judicial Review and the Patent System, 26 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 1 (2020) [SSRN]

Kirti Gupta, Technology Standards and Competition in the Mobile Wireless Industry, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 865 (2015)

Kirti Gupta & Jay P. Kesan, Studying the Impact of eBay on Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Stephen Haber, Patents and the Wealth of Nations, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 811 (2016) [SSRN]

Terry Hart, License to Remix, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 837 (2016)

Deepak Hegde, Joan Farre-Mensa, & Alexander Ljungqvist, What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”, 75 J. Finance 639 (2020) [SSRN]

Bowman Heiden & Nicolas Petit, Patent “Trespass” and the Royalty Gap: Exploring the Nature and Impact of “Patent Holdout”, 34 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 179 (2018) [SSRN]

Christopher M. Holman, Bowman v. Monsanto: A Bellwether for the Emerging Issue of Patentable Self-Replicating Technologies and Inadvertent Infringement, 80 Mo. L. Rev. 665 (2014) [SSRN]

Christopher M. Holman, Charting the Contours of a Copyright Regime Optimized for Engineered Genetic Code, 69 Okla. L. Rev. 399 (2017) [SSRN]

Christopher M. Holman, GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva: Holding a Generic Liable for an Artificial Act of Inducement, 39 Biotech. L. Rep. 425 (2020)

Christopher M. Holman, The Mayo Framework Is Bad for Your Health, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 901 (2016) [SSRN]

Christopher M. Holman, Patent Term Adjustment: Recent Developments at the Federal Circuit and PTO, 39 Biotech. L. Rep. 266 (2020)

Christopher M. Holman, State Universities Push the Limits of Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity at the Federal Circuit, 39 Biotech. L. Rep. 347 (2020)

Ryan T. Holte, Clarity in Remedies for Patent Cases, 26 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 128 (2018) [SSRN]

Ryan T. Holte, Patent Submission Policies, 50 Akron L. Rev. 637 (2017) [SSRN]

Ryan T. Holte, Trolls or Great Inventors: Case Studies of Patent Assertion Entities, 59 St. Louis U. L.J. 1 (2014) [SSRN]

Ryan T. Holte & Christopher B. Seaman, Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit’s Application of eBay, 92 Wash. L. Rev. 145 (2017) [SSRN]

Ryan T. Holte & Ted M. Sichelman, Cycles of Obviousness, 105 Iowa L. Rev. 107 (2019) [SSRN]

John Howells & Ron D. Katznelson, The “Overly-Broad” Selden Patent, Henry Ford and Development in the Early US Automobile Industry (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Camilla A. Hrdy, Commercialization Awards, 2015 Wis. L. Rev. 13 (2015) [SSRN]

Camilla A. Hrdy, The Reemergence of State Anti-Patent Law, 89 U. Colo. L. Rev. 101 (2017) [SSRN]

Justin Hughes, Motion Pictures, Markets, and Copylocks, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 941 (2016) [SSRN]

Olena Ivus & Edwin L.-C. Lai, Patent Exhaustion Regime and International Production Sharing: Winners and Losers? (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Olena Ivus, Edwin L.-C. Lai, & Ted M. Sichelman, An Economic Model of Patent Exhaustion, 29 J. Econ. & Manag. Strategy 816 (2020) [SSRN]

Dmitry Karshtedt, The More Things Change: Improvement Patents, Drug Modifications, and the FDA, 109 Iowa L. Rev. 1129 (2019) [SSRN]

Jay P. Kesan, Economic Rationales for the Patent System in Current Context, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 897 (2015)

Zorina Khan, Inventing Ideas: Patents, Prizes, and the Knowledge Economy (Oxford Univ. Press 2020)

Zorina Khan, Inventing in the Shadow of the Patent System: Evidence from 19th-Century Patents and Prizes for Technological Innovations (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Zorina Khan, Trolls and Other Patent Inventions: Economic History and the Patent Controversy in the Twenty-First Century, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 825 (2014) [SSRN]

Edmund W. Kitch, Crowdfunding and an Innovator’s Access to Capital, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 887 (2014)

Bruce H. Kobayashi, Opening Pandora’s Black Box: A Coasian 1937 View of Performance Rights Organizations in 2014, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 925 (2015) [SSRN]

Christa J. Laser, Equitable Defenses in Patent Law, 75 U. Miami L. Rev. 1 (2020) [SSRN]

Gary Lawson, Appointments and Illegal Adjudication: The American Invents Act Through a Constitutional Lens, 26 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 26 (2018) [SSRN]

Anne Layne-Farrar, Moving Past the SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1093 (2014)

Stan J. Liebowitz, The Case for Copyright, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 907 (2017) [SSRN]

Stan J. Liebowitz, A Critique of Copyright Criticisms, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 943 (2015) [SSRN]

Erika F. Lietzan, Access Before Evidence and the Price of the FDA’s New Drug Authorities, 53 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1243 (2019) [SSRN]

Erika Lietzan, The Drug Innovation Paradox, 83 Mo. L. Rev. 39 (2018) [SSRN]

Erika Lietzan, The History and Political Economy of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, 49 Seton Hall L. Rev. 53 (2018) [SSRN]

Erika F. Lietzan, Paper Promises for Drug Innovation, 26 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 168 (2018) [SSRN]

Erika Lietzan & Kristina M.L. Acri, Distorted Drug Patents, 95 Wash. L. Rev. 1317 (2020) [SSRN]

Daryl Lim, Judging Equivalents, 36 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 223 (2020) [SSRN]

Jiarui Liu, The Predatory Effects of Copyright Piracy, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 961 (2017) [SSRN]

Adam J. MacLeod, Patent Infringement as Trespass, 69 Ala. L. Rev. 723 (2018) [SSRN]

Adam J. MacLeod, Public Rights After Oil States Energy, 95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1281 (2020) [SSRN]

Kevin Madigan & Adam Mossoff, Turning Gold Into Lead: How Patent Eligibility Doctrine is Undermining U.S. Leadership in Innovation, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 939 (2017) [SSRN]

Keith Mallinson, Don’t Fix What Isn’t Broken: The Extraordinary Record of Innovation and Success in the Cellular Industry Under Existing Licensing Practices, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 967 (2016)

Noel Maurer & Stephen Haber, An Empirical Analysis of the Patent Troll Hypothesis: Evidence from Publicly-Traded Firms (forthcoming)

Charles R. McManis & Brian Yagi, The Bayh-Dole Act and the Anticommons Hypothesis: Round Three, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1049 (2014)

Andrew C. Michaels, The Patent Lawyer’s Guide to Fascism on Individual Autonomy and Private Law, 49 N.M. L. Rev. 169 (2019) [SSRN]

Adam Mossoff, Trademark as a Property Right, 107 Ky. L.J. 1 (2019) [SSRN]

Adam Mossoff & Eric R. Claeys, Patent Injunctions, Economics, and Rights, 49 J. Leg. Stud. ___ (forthcoming 2020) [SSRN]

Lateef Mtima, The Idea Exclusions in Intellectual Property Law, 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L. J. 343 (2020)

Lauma Muizniece, University Autonomy and Commercialization of Publicly Funded Research: The Case of Latvia, ___ J. Knowl. Econ. ___ (2020)

Natasha Nayak, Barrier to Entry and Disruptive Innovation Potential in Big Data Markets: A Literature Review (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Natasha Nayak, Situating Patent Validity in Antitrust’s Rule of Reason: Exploring the Bounds of Actavis (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, Creators, Innovators, and Appropriation Mechanisms, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 973 (2015) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, Crowdfunding’s Impact on Start-Up IP Strategy, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 895 (2014) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, The Damaging Myth of Patent Exhaustion, 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 443 (2020) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, Distinguishing Different Kinds of Property in Patents and Copyrights, 27 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 205 (2019) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, The Lost “Art” of the Patent System, 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1397 (2015) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, The Overlooked French Influence on the Intellectual Property Clause, 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 733 (2015) [SSRN]

Sean M. O’Connor, Patented Electric Guitar Pickups and the Creation of Modern Music Genres, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1007 (2016) [SSRN]

David Orozco, Assessing the Efficacy of the Bayh-Dole Act Through the Lens of University Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), 21 N.C. J. L. & Tech. 115 (2019) [SSRN]

David Orozco, The Knowledge Police, 43 Hofstra L. Rev. 417 (2014)

Kristen Osenga, Formerly Manufacturing Entities: Piercing the “Patent Troll” Rhetoric, 47 Conn. L. Rev. 435 (2014) [SSRN]

Kristen Osenga, Ignorance Over Innovation: Why Misunderstanding Standard Setting Operations Will Hinder Technological Progress, 56 U. Louisville L. Rev. 159 (2018)

Kristen Osenga, Institutional Design for Innovation: A Radical Proposal for Addressing § 101 Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, 68 Am. U. L. Rev. 1191 (2019) [SSRN]

Kristen Osenga, Sticks and Stones: How the FTC’s Name-Calling Misses the Complexity of Licensing-Based Business Models, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1001 (2015) [SSRN]

Sean A. Pager, Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1021 (2015)

Walter G. Park, Averting a “Tripsxit” From the Global Intellectual Property System, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 883 (2017)

James Pooley, The Myth of the Trade Secret Troll: Why the Defend Trade Secrets Act Improves the Protection of Commercial Information, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1045 (2016) [SSRN]

Eric Priest, Copyright and Free Expression in China’s Film Industry, 26 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1 (2015)

Eric Priest, Meet the New Media, Same as the Old Media: Real Lessons from China’s Digital Copyright Industries, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1079 (2016) [SSRN]

Eric Priest, Why Don’t We Think About Authors the Way We Think About Entrepreneurs?, ___ Berkeley Tech. L.J. ___ (forthcoming 2020)

Jonathan D. Putnam & Tim A. Williams, The Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit (SSPPU): Theory and Evidence (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Yi Qian & Margaret Kyle, Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Innovation: Evidence from TRIPS (forthcoming) [SSRN]

Michael Risch, A Generation of Patent Litigation, 52 San Diego L. Rev. 67 (2015) [SSRN]

Michael Risch, Licensing Acquired Patents, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 979 (2014) [SSRN]

Michael Risch, (Un)Reasonable Royalties, 98 B.U. L. Rev. 187 (2018) [SSRN]

Keith Robinson, Using Interactive Inventions, 69 DePaul L. Rev. 95 (2019) [SSRN]

Gregory Salmieri, Intellectual Property and the Freedom Needed to Solve the Crisis of Resistant Infections, 26 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 215 (2018)

Mark Schultz, Kevin Madigan, Debra Waggoner, & Roy Kamphausen, Using IP Best Practices Dialogues to Improve IP Systems Globally: The Example of the Trade Secrets Law Best Practices Dialogue, 26 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 88 (2018)

Nicola Searle, Business Models and Copyright Reform: The Legal Business Model (forthcoming 2020) [SSRN]

Jacob S. Sherkow, Administrating Patent Litigation, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 205 (2015) [SSRN]

Jacob S. Sherkow, Cancer’s IP, 96 N.C. L. Rev. 297 (2018) [SSRN]

Ted M. Sichelman & Ryan T. Holte, Codebooks for Cycles of Obviousness, 105 Iowa L. Rev. 107 (2019) [SSRN]

Brenda M. Simon, Patents, Information, and Innovation, 85 Brook. L. Rev. 727 (2020) [SSRN]

Talha Syed, Owning Knowledge: A Unified Theory of Patent Eligibility (forthcoming) [SSRN]

David O. Taylor, Patent Eligibility and Investment, 41 Cardozo L. Rev. 2019 (2020) [SSRN]

David J. Teece & Edward F. Sherry, Licensing and Standards Setting: The Multiple Meanings of “Ex Ante” Negotiations and Implications for Public Policy (forthcoming)

Shine Tu, Patent Examiners and Litigation Outcomes, 17 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 507 (2014) [SSRN]

V.K. Unni, India’s TRIPS Compliant Patent Decade – The Tumultuous Journey in Search of a Pragmatic Equilibrium, 50 Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 161 (2019) [SSRN]

Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Disguised Patent Policymaking, 76 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1667 (2019) [SSRN]

Saurabh Vishnubhakat, The Field of Invention, 45 Hofstra L. Rev. 899 (2017) [SSRN]

Christopher J. Walker & Melissa F. Wasserman, The New World of Agency Adjudication, 107 Cal. L. Rev. 141 (2019) [SSRN]

Runhua Wang, Decoding Judicial Reasoning in China: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of Guiding Cases, 68 Clev. St. L. Rev. 521 (2020) [SSRN]

Joshua D. Wright, SSOs, FRAND, and Antitrust: Lessons from the Economics of Incomplete Contracts, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 791 (2014)

Stephen Yelderman, Coordination-Focused Patent Policy, 96 B.U. L. Rev. 1565 (2016) [SSRN]