Raising the stakes in patent cases

Georgetown Law Journal

Volumn 101, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 637-687

  Malani, Anup ^a   Masur, Jonathan S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878727006     PISSN: 00168092     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (150)

1. Steven Shavell & Tanguy van Ypersele, Rewards Versus Intellectual Property Rights, 44 J.L. & ECON. 525, 534-36 (2001).
2. Michael Kremer, Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation, 113 Q.J. ECON. 1137, 1137-38 (1998).
3. Steven Shavell & Tanguy van Ypersele, Rewards Versus Intellectual Property Rights, 44 J.L. & ECON. 525, (2001); supra note 1, at 529.
4. FED. TRADE COMM'N, TO PROMOTE INNOVATION: THE PROPER BALANCE OF COMPETITION AND PATENT LAW AND POLICY 6-8 (2003), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf;.
5. ADAM B. JAFFE & JOSH LERNER, INNOVATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: HOW OUR BROKEN PATENT SYSTEM IS ENDANGERING INNOVATION AND PROGRESS, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT 24-35 (2004).
6. Jay Dratler Jr., Alice in Wonderland Meets the U.S. Patent System, 38 AKRON L. REV. 299 (2005).
7. C. Scott Hemphill & Bhaven N. Sampat, When Do Generics Challenge Drug Patents?, 8 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 613, 632 (2011).
8. Michael J. Meurer, Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Intellectual Property Law, 45 HOUS. L. REV. 1201, 1234 (2008).
9. ADAM B. JAFFE & JOSH LERNER, INNOVATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: HOW OUR BROKEN PATENT SYSTEM IS ENDANGERING INNOVATION AND PROGRESS, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (2004), supra note 7, at 32-33.
10. Mark A. Lemley, Essay, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, 1495 & n.1 (2001) ("Complaints are legion.").
11. Mark Lemley, Doug Lichtman & Bhaven Sampat, What To Do About Bad Patents?, REGULATION, Winter 2005-2006, at 10, 10 (2005) ("Bad patents are everywhere.").
12. Doug Lichtman & Mark A. Lemley, Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity, 60 STAN. L. REV. 45, 47 (2007).
13. Robert P. Merges, As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 577, 589 (1999).
14. Michael J. Meurer, Patent Examination Priorities, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 675, 676 (2009).
15. David L. Schwartz, Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 MICH. L. REV. 223, 258-59 (2008).
16. NAT'L RES. COUNCIL, A PATENT SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (Stephen A. Merrill et al. eds., 2004) (describing a continuing crisis within the patent system).
17. Peter S. Menell, The Property Rights Movement's Embrace of Intellectual Property: True Love or Doomed Relationship?, 34 ECOLOGY L.Q. 713, 737 (2007).
18. Gary S. Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 76 J. POL. ECON. 169, 172, 180 (1968).
19. Keith N. Hylton, Costly Litigation and Legal Error Under Negligence, 6 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 433, 434 (1990).
20. Daniel T. Slesnick, Empirical Approaches to the Measurement of Welfare, 36 J. ECON. LITERATURE 2108, 2110-13 (1998).
21. Donald M. Topkis, Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice, 26 OPERATIONS RES. 305, 317 (1978).
22. JEAN TIROLE, THE THEORY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 42 (1988).
23. Mark A. Lemley & Ziv Shafir, Who Chooses Open-Source Software?, 78 U. CHI. L. REV. 139 (2011).
24. Ira V. Heffan, Note, Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age, 49 STAN. L. REV. 1487, 1504-07 (1997).
25. Council on Ethical & Judicial Affairs, Am. Med. Ass'n., Ethical Issues in the Patenting of Medical Procedures, 53 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 341, 349 (1998).
26. Wendy W. Yang, Note, Patent Policy and Medical Procedure Patents: The Case for Statutory Exclusion from Patentability, 1 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 5 para. 17 (1995).
27. Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, 92 VA. L. REV. 1687, 1689 (2006).
28. Benjamin N. Roin, Unpatentable Drugs and the Standards of Patentability, 87 TEX. L. REV. 503, 519-21 (2009).
29. John R. Allison et al., Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 GEO. L.J. 677, 691-95 (2011).
30. Walter O. Alomar-Jiménez, Harmonizing Ebay, 1 U. P.R. BUS. L.J. 17, 24 (2010).
31. Christopher A. Harkins, Fending Off Paper Patents and Patent Trolls: A Novel "Cold Fusion" Defense Because Changing Times Demand It, 17 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 407, 407 (2007).
32. Patrick Coyle, Note, Uniform Patent Litigation in the European Union: An Analysis of the Viability of Recent Proposals Aimed at Unifying the European Patent Litigation System, 11 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 171 (2012).
33. John R. Thomas, Litigation Beyond the Technological Frontier: Comparative Approaches to Multinational Patent Enforcement, 27 LAW & POL'Y INT'L BUS. 277, 282-88 (1996).
34. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 VA. L. REV. 1575, 1644-46 (2003).
35. Andres Sawicki, Better Mistakes in Patent Law, 39 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 735, 746-49 (2012).
36. Richard H. Stern, The Bundle of Rights Suited to New Technology, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 1229, 1249 (1986).
37. Noel Courage, Sharing the (Genetic) Wealth, 35 TEX. INT'L L.J. 123, 123-24 (2000).
38. KRISHNA R. DRONAMRAJU, BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES IN BIOTECHNOLOGY SHARING (1998).
39. Michael Abramowicz & John F. Duffy, The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 YALE L.J. 1590, 1648 (2011).
40. Edmund W. Kitch, The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J.L. & ECON. 265, 276 (1977).
41. F. Scott Kieff, Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions, 85 MINN. L. REV. 697, 709-10 (2001).
42. Mark A. Lemley, Essay, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, (2001) supra note 10, at 1499-1500.
43. Kristen Dietly, Note, Lightening the Load: Whether the Burden of Proof for Overcoming A Patent's Presumption of Validity Should Be Lowered, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 2615, 2655-56 (2010).
44. Jonathan Masur, Patent Inflation, 121 YALE L.J. 470, 474 (2011).
45. Matthew Fawcett & Jeremiah Chan, March of the Trolls: Footsteps Getting Louder, 13 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 1, 18-19 (2008).
46. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 1743, 1765-70 (2009).
47. Ian A. Lampl, Establishing Rules for Resolving Markman Failures, 72 U. CHI. L. REV. 1025, 1038-39 (2005).
48. C. Scott Hemphill, Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Regulatory Design Problem, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1553, 1560-61 (2006).
49. Mark A. Lemley, Essay, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, (2001) supra note 10, at 1524-25.
50. Christian B. Sundquist, The First Principles of Standing: Privilege, System Justification, and the Predictable Incoherence of Article III, 1 COLUM. J. RACE & L. 119, 131 (2011).
51. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 205 (1998).
52. Mark A. Lemley, The Fractioning of Patent Law, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE COMMON LAW (Shyamkrishna Balganesh ed., forthcoming 2013) (manuscript at 2-3), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id!1895681.
53. Mark A. Lemley, Essay, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, (2001) supra note 10, at 1501.
54. Jay P. Kesan & Gwendolyn G. Ball, How Are Patent Cases Resolved? An Empirical Examination of the Adjudication and Settlement of Patent Disputes, 84 WASH. U. L. REV. 237, 271 (2006).
55. Mark D. Janis, On Courts Herding Cats: Contending with the "Written Description" Requirement (and Other Unruly Patent Disclosure Doctrines), 2 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 55, 62-69 (2000).
56. David O. Taylor, Clear But Unconvincing: The Federal Circuit's Invalidity Standard, 21 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA& ENT. L.J. 293, 295-96 (2011).
57. R. Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1105, 1111-12 (2004).
58. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, (1998). supra note 52, at 221-23.
59. John R. Allison et al., Valuable Patents, 92 GEO. L.J. 435, 477-78 (2003).
60. GLORIA K. KOENIG, PATENT INVALIDITY: A STATISTICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS (rev. ed. 1980).
61. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1155, 1185 (2002).
62. Andres Sawicki, Better Mistakes in Patent Law, 39 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 735, (2012). supra note 38, at 766.
63. Jonathan M. Barnett, Private Protection of Patentable Goods, 25 CARDOZO L. REV. 1251, 1251-52 (2004).
64. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, (1998) supra note 52, at 187.
65. Josh Lerner, Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors, 38 J.L. & ECON. 463, 470-71 (1995).
66. C. Scott Hemphill & Bhaven N. Sampat, Evergreening, Patent Challenges, and Effective Market Life in Pharmaceuticals, 31 J. HEALTH ECON. 327, 336 (2012).
67. Laura E. Panattoni, The Effect of Paragraph IV Decisions and Generic Entry Before Patent Expiration on Brand Pharmaceutical Firms, 30 J. HEALTH ECON. 126 (2011).
68. Henry G. Grabowski & Margaret Kyle, Generic Competition and Market Exclusivity Periods in Pharmaceuticals, 28 MANAGERIAL DECISION ECON. 491, 497 (2007).
69. C. Scott Hemphill & Bhaven N. Sampat, Evergreening, Patent Challenges, and Effective Market Life in Pharmaceuticals, 31 J. HEALTH ECON. 327, (2012), supra note 67, at 3-4.
70. Joseph A. DiMasi et al., The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs, 22 J. HEALTH ECON. 151, 154 fig.1 (2003).
71. John M. Golden, Principles for Patent Remedies, 88 TEX. L. REV. 505, 544 (2010).
72. Michael J. Meurer, Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Intellectual Property Law, 45 HOUS. L. REV. 1201, 1227 (2008).
73. Stuart J.H. Graham & Ted Sichelman, Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1063, 1086 (2008).
74. Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, The Choice Between Patent Protection and Trade Secret Protection: A Legal and Business Decision, 84 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 371, 405 (2002).
75. Tun-Jen Chiang, Fixing Patent Boundaries, 108 MICH. L. REV. 523, 560 (2010).
76. Michael J. Meurer & Craig Allen Nard, Invention, Refinement and Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents, 93 GEO. L.J. 1947, 1955 (2005).
77. Mark A. Lemley, Essay, Point of Novelty, 105 NW. U. L. REV. 1253, 1254 (2011).
78. Stuart J.H. Graham & Ted Sichelman, Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1063, (2008), supra note 73, at 1068.
79. Colleen V. Chien, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1571, 1587-88 (2009).
80. Ted Sichelman & Stuart J.H. Graham, Patenting By Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Study, 17 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 111, 125-27 (2010).
81. Michael A. Carrier, Unraveling the Patent-Antitrust Paradox, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 761, 768 (2002).
82. AM. INTELLECTUAL PROP. LAW ASS'N, REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY 22 (2003).
83. JEAN TIROLE, THE THEORY OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 42 (1988). supra note 21, at 56.
84. Peter Lee, The Accession Insight and Patent Infringement Remedies, 110 MICH. L. REV. 175, 202 (2011).
85. Simone A. Rose, On Purple Pills, Stem Cells, and Other Market Failures: A Case for a Limited Compulsory Licensing Scheme for Patent Property, 48 HOW. L.J. 579, 584 (2005).
86. Ranganath Sudarshan, Nuisance-Value Patent Suits: An Economic Model and Proposal, 25 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER &HIGH TECH. L.J. 159, 177 (2009).
87. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, Errors and the Functioning of Tort Liability, 13 SUP. CT. ECON. REV. 165, 167 (2005).
88. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, In Search of Institutional Identity: The Federal Circuit Comes of Age, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 787, 804 (2008).
89. Arti K. Rai, Engaging Facts and Policy: A Multi- Institutional Approach to Patent System Reform, 103 COLUM. L. REV. 1035, 1102 (2003).
90. Jonathan S. Masur, Regulating Patents, 2010 SUP. CT. REV. 275, 307-09 (2011).
91. Peter Lee, Patent Law and the Two Cultures, 120 YALE L.J. 2, 20-25 (2010).
92. Jonathan S. Masur, Regulating Patents, 2010 SUP. CT. REV. 275, (2011) supra note 92, at 310-11.
93. John R. Allison & Starling D. Hunter, On the Feasibility of Improving Patent Quality One Technology at a Time: The Case of Business Methods, 21 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 729 (2006).
94. Shubha Ghosh & Jay Kesan, What Do Patents Purchase? In Search of Optimal Ignorance in the Patent Office, 40 HOUS. L. REV. 1219 (2004).
95. ADAM B. JAFFE & JOSH LERNER, INNOVATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: HOW OUR BROKEN PATENT SYSTEM IS ENDANGERING INNOVATION AND PROGRESS, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (2004), supra note 7, at 136.
96. John Bronsteen, Against Summary Judgment, 75 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 522, 540-41 (2007).
97. Gajan Retnasaba, Why It Is Easier To Get a Patent in September (May 23, 2008) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://www.ssrn.com/abstract- id!1121132.
98. RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 167-211 (7th ed. 2007).
99. Robert Cooter, Unity in Tort, Contract, and Property: The Model of Precaution, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 4-5 (1985).
100. Andrew M. Kenefick, Note, The Constitutionality of Punitive Damages Under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, 85 MICH. L. REV. 1699, 1704 (1987).
101. HARVEY S. ROSEN, PUBLIC FINANCE 61 (5th ed. 1999).
102. Joseph Scott Miller, Building a Better Bounty: Litigation-Stage Rewards for Defeating Patents, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 667, 688 (2004).
103. Christopher R. Leslie, The Anticompetitive Effects of Unenforced Invalid Patents, 91 MINN. L. REV. 101, 114 (2006).
104. Gideon Parchomovsky & Peter Siegelman, Towards an Integrated Theory of Intellectual Property, 88 VA. L. REV. 1455, 1462-63 (2002).
105. Richard Hynes & Eric A. Posner, The Law and Economics of Consumer Finance, 4 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 168, 179 (2002).
106. Alan J. Meese, Debunking the Purchaser Welfare Account of Section 2 of the Sherman Act: How Harvard Brought Us a Total Welfare Standard and Why We Should Keep It, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 659, 662 (2010).
107. Anup Malani & Jonathan Masur, Two-Part Pricing and the Cost of Patents (2012).
108. Jayanta Bhattacharya & William B. Vogt, A Simple Model of Pharmaceutical Price Dynamics, 46 J.L. & ECON. 599, 599 (2003).
109. Richard G. Frank & David S. Salkever, Generic Entry and the Pricing of Pharmaceuticals, 6 J. ECON. & MGMT. STRATEGY 75, 82-83 (1997).
110. Henry. G. Grabowski & John M. Vernon, Brand Loyalty, Entry, and Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals After the 1984 Drug Act, 35 J.L. & ECON. 331 (1992).
111. Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas Philipson, Does Intellectual Property Restrict Output? An Analysis of Pharmaceutical Markets, 55 J.L. & ECON. 151, 152 (2012).
112. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms, 50 MGMT. SCI. 804, 808 (2004).
113. C. Scott Hemphill, Paying for Delay: Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement as a Regulatory Design Problem, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1553, (2006), supra note 47, at 1561-67.
114. Thomas D. Rowe Jr., The Legal Theory of Attorney Fee Shifting: A Critical Overview, 1982 DUKE L.J. 651, 651 (1982).
115. John C. Coffee Jr., The Regulation of Entrepreneurial Litigation: Balancing Fairness and Efficiency in the Large Class Action, 54 U. CHI. L. REV. 877, 896 (1987).
116. Avery Katz, Measuring the Demand for Litigation: Is the English Rule Really Cheaper?, 3 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 143 (1987).
117. John F. Vargo, The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation: The Injured Person's Access to Justice, 42 AM. U. L. REV. 1567 (1993).
118. Robert D. Cooter & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution, 27 J. ECON. LIT. 1067, 1073 (1989).
119. Edward F. Sherman, From "Loser Pays" to Modified Offer of Judgment Rules: Reconciling Incentives to Settle with Access to Justice, 76 TEX. L. REV. 1863, 1871-72 (1998).
120. Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Background Paper, Study on Paths to a "Better Way": Litigation, Alternatives, and Accommodation, 1989 DUKE L.J. 824, 888 (1989).
121. Anderson v. Continental Ins. Co., 271 N.W.2d 368, 376 (1978).
122. Clarisa Long, Information Costs in Patent and Copyright, 90 VA. L. REV. 465, 471 (2004).
123. Robert P. Merges, The Trouble with Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking, and Patent Law Reform, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1583, 1603-04 (2009).
124. Colleen V. Chien, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, 62 HASTINGS L.J. 297, 299 (2010).
125. David Drummond, When Patents Attack Android, GOOGLE OFFICIAL BLOG (Aug. 3, 2011), http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android. html.
126. Robert E. Thomas, Vanquishing Copyright Pirates and Patent Trolls: The Divergent Evolution of Copyright and Patent Laws, 43 AM. BUS. L.J. 689, 693 (2006).
127. Jonathan S. Masur, Regulating Patents, 2010 SUP. CT. REV. 275, (2011) supra note 92, at 279.
128. DAN L. BURK & MARK A. LEMLEY, THE PATENT CRISIS AND HOW THE COURTS CAN SOLVE IT 13 (2009).
129. Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 1092, 1092 (Jan. 5, 2001).
130. Memorable Quotes for All the President's Men, INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/quotes (last visited Nov. 1, 2012).
131. Mark A. Lemley, Ten Things To Do About Patent Holdup of Standards (and One Not To), 48 B.C. L. REV. 149, 150 (2007).
132. Herbert Kritzer, Lawrence Marshall & Frances Kahn Zemans, Rule 11: Moving Beyond the Cosmic Anecdote, 75 JUDICATURE 269, 270 (1992).
133. Joseph J. Brecher, The Public Interest and Intimidation Suits: A New Approach, 28 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 105, 137 (1988).
134. Robert Kasunic, Preserving the Traditional Contours of Copyright, 30 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 397, 424 nn.95-96 (2007).
135. RICHARD A. POSNER, HOW JUDGES THINK 131-35 (2008).
136. Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 YALE L.J. 950 (1979).
137. Robert Cooter et al., Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: A Testable Model of Strategic Behavior, 11 J. LEGAL STUD. 225 (1982).
138. Steven Shavell, Suit, Settlement, and Trial: A Theoretical Analysis Under Alternative Methods for the Allocation of Legal Costs, 11 J. LEGAL STUD. 55 (1982) (same).
139. Steven Shavell, Suit, Settlement, and Trial: A Theoretical Analysis Under Alternative Methods for the Allocation of Legal Costs, 11 J. LEGAL STUD. 55 (1982) (same). supra note 174, at 67.
140. Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 YALE L.J. (1979) supra note 174, at 971 (elaborating on this point).
141. Richard A. Posner, An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration, 2 J. LEGAL STUD. 399, 418 (1973).
142. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, The Selection of Disputes for Litigation, 13 J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 9-12 (1984).
143. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, Litigation and Settlement Under Imperfect Information, 15 RAND J. ECON. 404, 405, 414 (1984).
144. Jennifer F. Reinganum & Louis L. Wilde, Settlement, Litigation, and the Allocation of Litigation Costs, 17 RAND J. ECON. 557, 558-59 (1986).
145. Russell Korobkin, Aspirations and Settlement, 88 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 6 (2002).
146. Samuel Issacharoff & George Loewenstein, Second Thoughts About Summary Judgment, 100 YALE L.J. 73, 101 (1990).
147. Robert J. Rhee, Bonding Limited Liability, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1417 (2010).
148. Timothy Denny Greene, "All Substantial Rights": Toward Sensible Patent Licensee Standing, 22 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 35-37 (2012).
149. Tony Dutra, Stakeholders at PTO Roundtable Recommend Reporting Real Party in Interest Changes Only, 85 PAT., TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT J. 419 (Jan. 24, 2013).
150. Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 SCIENCE 698, 698 (1998).