Timing, continuity, and change in the patent system

Politics of Intellectual Property: Contestation Over the Ownership, Use, and Control of Knowledge and Information

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 211-237

  Thambisetty, Sivaramjani ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881931201     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (68)

1. Arthur, W. Brian (1994), Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
2. Astron Clinica Ltd and Others [2008] EWHC 85 (Pat).
3. Atkinson, Scott, A. Marco and J.L. Turner (2008), 'The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping and the Federal Circuit', , accessed 25 November 2008.
4. Beland, Daniel (2005), 'Ideas and Social Policy: An Institutionalism Perspective', Social Policy and Administration 39 (1), (Feb), 1-18.
5. Bessen, James and Michael Meurer (2008), Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
6. Bodoni, Stephanie (2006), 'Blackberry Saga Boosts Case for Patent Reform', MIP, 8-9.
7. Coflexip v Stolt Comex [2004] FSR 7 (Ch (Pat Ct)) and [2004] FSR 34 (CA).
8. Cornelli, Francesca and Mark Schankerman (1999), 'Patent renewals and R&D incentives', RAND Journal of Economics 30 (2), 197-213.
9. Cornish, William (2004), Intellectual Property: Omnipresent, Distracting, Irrelevant, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. David, Paul (2001), 'Path Dependence, its Critics and the Quest for "Historical Economics"', in Pierre Garrouste and Stavors Ioannides (eds), Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 15-40.
11. Davies, Louise (2002), 'Technical Cooperation and the International Coordination of Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions', Journal of Law and Society 29 (1), 137-62.
12. Denzau, Arthur and D.C. North (1994), 'Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions', Kyklos 47 (1), 3-31.
13. Diagnostic Methods (2006), G 0001/04 OJ EPO 334.
14. Doern, G. Bruce (1999), Global Change and Intellectual Property Agencies, London: Pinter.
15. Drahos, Peter (2004), 'Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Markets: A Nodal Governance Approach', Temple Law Review 77 (2), 401-24.
16. Drahos, Peter (2008), 'Does Dialogue Make a Diff erence? Structural Change and the Limits of Framing', Yale Law Journal 117 (June), Pocket Part 268.
17. Ducor, Phillipe (2000), Patenting of Recombinant DNA Products, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
18. EISAI/Second Medical Use (1985), G05/83 OJ EPO.
19. Eisenberg, Rebecca (2004), 'Obvious to Whom? Evaluating Inventions from the Perspective of PHOSITA', Berkeley Tech. Law Journal 19 (3), 885-906.
20. Eisenberg, Rebecca (2005), 'How Can You Patent Genes?', in T.A. Shannon (ed.), Genetics: Science, Ethics and Public Policy: A Reader, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, pp. 131-45.
21. ESC Opinion (2002), COM (2002) 92 Final - 2002/0047 (COD) 5.4. European central bank v Document Security Systems [2008] EWCA Civ 19.
22. European Patent Convention (2000), http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/contents.html.
23. European Union (2002), 'Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions' 2002/0047/COD.
24. Ex parte Lundgren 76 USPQ 2d 1385 (Bd Pat App & Inter 2005).
25. Farrell, Joseph and R.P. Merges (2004), 'Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation will not Reliably Fix Patent Offi ce Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help', Berkeley Technical Law Journal 19 (1)
26. Gans, Joshua S., S.P. King and R. Lampe (2004), 'Patent Renewal Fees and Self Funding Patent Offi ces', Topics in Theoretical Economics, Legal Studies Research Paper 4 (64), Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne, , accessed 25 November 2008.
27. Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (2006), http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbro6_gowers_report_775.pdf.
28. Haas, Peter M. (1992), 'Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination', IO, 46 (1), 1-35.
29. Hall, Bronwyn, H. Jaff e, B. Adam and M. Trajtenberg (2001), 'Market Value and Patent Citations: A First look', NBER Working Paper 7741.
30. Hall, Peter A. and D. Soskice (2001), 'Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage', in Peter Hall and David Soskice (eds), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-70.
31. Hathaway, Oona (2001), 'Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Change in a Common Law Legal System', Iowa Law Review 86 (2), 601-65.
32. Henry, Mathew D. and J.L. Turner (2006) 'The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Impact on Patent Litigation', Journal of Legal Studies 35, 85-117.
33. Hitchcock, Julian (2005), 'A Case for the Streamlined Procedure', Mills & Reeve, , accessed 25 November 2008.
34. Impact Study on the European Patents Court in UK (2009), London: UKIPO (forthcoming).
35. In re Deuel 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed Cir 1995).
36. Kaczynski, Amy (2008), 'The Access to Knowledge Mobilisation and the New Politics of Intellectual Property', Yale Law Journal, 117, Pocket Part 804.
37. Landes, William M. and R.A. Posner (2003), The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Landes, William M. and R.A. Posner (2004), 'The Political Economy of Intellectual Property', AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, , accessed 25 November 2008.
39. Lanjouw, Jean O. and J. Lerner (1997), 'The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature', NBER Working Paper 6296.
40. Leith, Phillip (2001), 'Judicial or Administrative Roles: The Patent Appellate System in the European Context', IPQ (1), 50-99.
41. Lemley, Mark (2001), 'Rational Ignorance at the Patent Offi ce', Northwestern University Law Review 95 (4), 1495-1532.
42. Long, Clarisa (2002), 'Patent Signals', University of Chicago Law Review 69 (2), 625-679.
43. Marwell, Gerald and P. Oliver (1993), The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-Social Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Merges, Robert P. (1999), 'As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform', Berkeley Technical Law Journal 14, 577-615.
45. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton and Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76 (HL).
46. MIP (2003), 'Judge Slams Patent Court Proposal', , accessed 25 November 2008.
47. MIP (2008), 'Judge Calls for European Patent Litigation', , accessed 25 November 2008.
48. National Research Council (2006), Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research Innovation, 'Reaping the Benefi ts of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health', Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. North, Douglass C. (1983), 'A Theory of Institutional Change and the Economic History of the Western World', in Michael Hechter (ed.) The Microfoundations of Macrosociology, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
50. North, Douglass C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. NTP, Inc v Research in Motion, Ltd 418 F 3d 1282 (Fed Cir 2005).
52. Pierson, Paul (2000a), 'Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics', American Political Science Review 94 (2), 251-67.
53. Pierson, Paul (2000b), 'Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes', Studies in American Political Development 14, 72-92.
54. Pila, Justine (2003), 'Bound Futures: Patent Law and Modern Biotechnology', Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 9, 326-78.
55. RIM (2006) 'Research in Motion and NTP Sign Defi nitive Settlement Agreement to End Litigation', press release, , accessed 25 November 2008.
56. Scotchmer, Suzanne (1999), 'On the Optimality of the Patent Renewal System', RAND Journal of Economics 30 (2), 181-96.
57. Shadlen, Kenneth (2007), 'The Politics of Patents and Drugs in Brazil and Mexico: The Industrial Bases of Health Activism', GDAE Working Paper No. 07-05.
58. Sherman, Brad (1990), 'Patent Law in a Time of Change: Non-obviousness and Biotechnology', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 10 (2), 278-87.
59. Thambisetty, Sivaramjani (2007a), 'The Institutional Nature of the Patent System and its Impact on Bioethical Decision-Making', in Christian Lenk, Nils Hoppe and Roberto Andorno (eds), Studies in the Legal, Ethical and Political Impact of Intellectual Property, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 247-67.
60. Thambisetty, Sivaramjani (2007b), 'Patents as Credence Goods', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (4), 707-40.
61. Thambisetty, Sivaramjani (2009), 'Legal Transplants in Patent Law: Why Utility is the New Industrial Applicability', Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science and Technology (forthcoming).
62. Turner, John L. (2005), 'In Defence of the Patent Friendly Court Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence', , accessed 25 November 2008.
63. USPTO (2000), Corporate Plan, p. 17.
64. USPTO (2001a), Corporate Plan, p. 71.
65. USPTO (2001b), Utility Examination Guidelines, 66 Fed Reg 1092-1099.
66. USPTO (2005), Interim Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.
67. Varma, A. and D. Abraham (1996), 'DNA is Diff erent: Legal Obviousness and the Balance Between Biotech Inventors and the Market', Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 9 (53), 78.
68. Wagner, Polk R. and L. Petherbridge (2004), 'Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance', University of Pennsylvania Law Review 152, 1105-80.