The court of appeals for the federal circuit's impact on patent litigation

Journal of Legal Studies

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 85-117

  Henry, Matthew D ^a   Turner, John L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645304842     PISSN: 00472530     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/498834     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Allison, John R., and Mark Lemley. 1998. Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents. AIPLA Quarterly Journal 26:185-275.
2. Andrews, Donald W. K. 1993. Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point. Econometrica 61:821-56.
3. Baum, Lawrence. 1974. The Federal Courts and Patent Validity: An Analysis of the Record. Journal of the Patent Office Society 56:758-87.
4. Clermont, Kevin M., and Theodore Eisenberg. 1992. Trial by Jury or Judge: Transcending Empiricism. Cornell Law Review 77:1124-77.
5. Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper. 1989. The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts. New York University Law Review 64:1-78.
6. Dunner, Donald R. 1985. Introduction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - the First Three Years. AIPLA Quarterly Journal 13:185-94.
7. Dunner, Donald R., and J. Michael Jakes. 1993. The Equitable Doctrine of Equivalents. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 74:857-74.
8. Dunner, Donald R., J. Michael Jakes, and Jeffrey D. Karceski. 1995. A Statistical Look at the Federal Circuit's Patent Decisions: 1982-1994. Federal Circuit Bar Journal 5:151-79.
9. Federico, P. J. 1956. Adjudicated Patents, 1948-54. Journal of the Patent Office Society 38:233-49.
10. Goldstein, Paul. 1993. Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines: Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellectual Property. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.
11. Hall, Bronwyn H. 2005. Exploring the Patent Explosion. Journal of Technology Transfer 30:35-48.
12. Hall, Bronwyn H., and Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis. 2001. The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32:101-28.
13. Hamilton, J. D. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
14. Harmon, Robert L. 1992. Seven New Rules of Thumb: How the Federal Circuit Has Changed the Way Patent Lawyers Advise Clients. George Mason University Law Review 14:573-84.
15. Jolis, Christine, Cass R. Sunstein, and Richard Thaler, 1998. A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review 50:1471-1550.
16. Kastriner, Lawrence G. 1991. The Revival of Confidence in the Patent System. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Society 73:5-23.
17. Kessler, Daniel, Thomas Meites, and Geoffrey Miller. 1996. Explaining Deviations from the Fifty-Percent Rule: A Multimodal Approach to the Selection of Cases for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 25:233-59.
18. Koenig, Gloria. 1980. Patent Invalidity: A Statistical and Substantive Analysis. New York: Clark Boardman.
19. Kortum, Samuel, and Josh Lerner. 1998. Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What Is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting? Carnegie-Rochester Series on Public Policy 48:247-304.
20. Lanjouw, Jean O., and Mark Schankerman. 2001. Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition. RAND Journal of Economics 32:129-51.
21. _. 2004. Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped? Journal of Law and Economics 47:45-74.
22. Marco, Alan C. 2005. Learning by Suing: Structural Estimates of Court Errors in Patent Litigation. Working Paper No. 68. Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
23. Merges, Robert P. 1997. Patent Law and Policy. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie Law Publishers.
24. Merz, Jon F., and Nicholas M. Pace. 1994. Trends in Patent Litigation: The Apparent Influence of Strengthened Patents Attributable to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 76:579-90.
25. Moore, Kimberly. 2000. Judges, Juries and Patent Cases: An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box. Michigan Law Review 98:365-406.
26. _. 2001. Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation? North Carolina Law Review 79:889-935.
27. _. 2003. Xenophobia in American Courts. Northwestern University Law Review 97:1497-1550.
28. Perron, Pierre. 1989. The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica 57:1361-1401.
29. Priest, George L., and Benjamin Klein. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13:1-55.
30. Quillen, Cecil D., Jr. 1993. Proposal for the Simplification and Reform of the United States Patent System. AIPLA Quarterly Journal 21:189-212.
31. Turner, John L. 2005. In Defense of the Patent Friendly Court Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence. Unpublished manuscript. University of Georgia, Department of Economics.
32. Vogelsang, Timothy J. 1997. Wald-Type Tests for Detecting Shifts in the Trend Function of a Dynamic Time Series. Econometric Theory 13:818-49.
33. Zivot, Eric, and Donald W. K. Andrews. 1992. Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10:251-70.