Intellectual property defenses

Columbia Law Review

Volumn 113, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1483-1542

  Parchomovsky, Gideon ^a   Stein, Alex ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b YESHIVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886303992     PISSN: 00101958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley & Joshua Walker, Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 Geo. L.J. 677 (2011).
2. Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (rev. ed. 2006).
3. Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, "Hot News": The Enduring Myth of Property in News, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 419 (2011).
4. Baumol, William J., On Taxation and the Control of Externalities, 62 Am. Econ. Rev. 307 (1972).
5. Beebe, Barton, An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 1581 (2006).
6. Beebe, Barton, Search and Persuasion in Trademark Law, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 2020 (2005).
7. Bell, Abraham & Gideon Parchomovsky, Of Property and Antiproperty, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (2003).
8. Benkler, Yochai, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (2006).
9. Bernstein, Gaia, In the Shadow of Innovation, 31 Cardozo L. Rev. 2257 (2010).
10. Bessen, James & Michael J. Meurer, Lessons for Patent Policy from Empirical Research on Patent Litigation, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1 (2005).
11. Bibas, Stephanos, Prosecutorial Regulation Versus Prosecutorial Accountability, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 959 (2009).
12. Boldrin, Michele & David K. Levine, The Case Against Patents, J. Econ. Persp., Winter 2013, at 3.
13. Bradford, Benjamin J. & Sandra J. Durkin, A Proposal for Mandatory Patent Reexaminations, 52 IDEA 135 (2012).
14. Buccafusco, Christopher & Christopher Jon Sprigman, The Creativity Effect, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 31 (2011).
15. Chien, Colleen V. & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2012).
16. Coase, R.H., The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & Econ. 1 (1960).
17. Coffee, John C., Jr., Class Action Accountability: Reconciling Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in Representative Litigation, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 370 (2000).
18. Cohen, Adam, Securing Trade Secrets in the Information Age: Upgrading the Economic Espionage Act After United States v. Aleynikov, 30 Yale J. on Reg. 189 (2013).
19. Cotter, Thomas F., Misuse, 44 Hous. L. Rev. 901 (2007).
20. Demsetz, Harold, Toward a Theory of Property Rights, 57 Am. Econ. Rev. 347 (1967).
21. Depoorter, Ben, The Upside of Losing, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 817 (2013).
22. Desai, Deven R. & Sandra L. Rierson, Confronting the Genericism Conundrum, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 1789 (2007).
23. Dogan, Stacey L. & Mark A. Lemley, A Search-Costs Theory of Limiting Doctrines in Trademark Law, 97 Trademark Rep. 1223 (2007).
24. Dogan, Stacey L. & Mark A. Lemley, The Trademark Use Requirement in Dilution Cases, 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 541 (2008).
25. Dole, Richard F., Jr., The Uniform Trade Secrets Act-Trends and Prospects, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 409 (2010).
26. Effron, Robin J., The Shadow Rules of Joinder, 100 Geo. L.J. 759 (2012).
27. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patent Costs and Unlicensed Use of Patented Inventions, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 53 (2011).
28. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1017 (1989).
29. Ewing, Tom & Robin Feldman, The Giants Among Us, Stan. Tech. L. Rev., Jan. 9, 2012, at 1, http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf.
30. Farnsworth, E. Allan, Your Loss or My Gain? The Dilemma of the Disgorgement Principle in Breach of Contract, 94 Yale L.J. 1339 (1985).
31. Farrell, Joseph & Robert P. Merges, Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation Won't Reliably Fix Patent Office Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 943 (2004).
32. Ford, Roger A., Patent Invalidity Versus Noninfringement, 99 Cornell L. Rev. (forthcoming 2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2256207.
33. Frischmann, Brett M. & Mark A. Lemley, Spillovers, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 257 (2007).
34. Fromer, Jeanne C., Claiming Intellectual Property, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 719 (2009).
35. Galanter, Marc, Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 95 (1974).
36. Garcia, Ruben J., A Democratic Theory of Amicus Advocacy, 35 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 315 (2008).
37. Gibson, James, Risk Aversion and Rights Accretion in Intellectual Property Law, 116 Yale L.J. 882 (2007).
38. Golden, John M., Patentable Subject Matter and Institutional Choice, 89 Tex. L. Rev. 1041 (2011).
39. Gordon, Wendy J., Toward a Jurisprudence of Benefits: The Norms of Copyright and the Problem of Private Censorship, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1009 (1990).
40. Grinvald, Leah Chan, Shaming Trademark Bullies, 2011 Wis. L. Rev. 625.
41. Hamdani, Assaf & Alon Klement, The Class Defense, 93 Calif. L. Rev. 685 (2005).
42. Hohfeld, Welsey Newcomb, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 26 Yale L.J. 710 (1917).
43. Holmes, Oliver W., Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457 (1897).
44. Hsieh, Edward, Note, Mandatory Joinder: An Indirect Method for Improving Patent Quality, 77 S. Cal. L. Rev. 683 (2004).
45. Kamar, Ehud, A Regulatory Competition Theory of Indeterminacy in Corporate Law, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 1908 (1998).
46. Kapczynski, Amy, The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property, 117 Yale L.J. 804 (2008).
47. Kelly, Daniel B., Strategic Spillovers, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 1641 (2011).
48. Kesan, Jay P., Carrots and Sticks to Create a Better Patent System, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 763 (2002).
49. Kesan, Jay P. & Andres A. Gallo, Why "Bad" Patents Survive in the Market and How Should We Change?-The Private and Social Costs of Patents, 55 Emory L.J. 61 (2006).
50. Kurtz, Leslie A., Copyright: The Scenes a Faire Doctrine, 41 Fla. L. Rev. 79 (1989).
51. Lemley, Mark A., Contracting Around Liability Rules, 100 Calif. L. Rev. 463 (2012).
52. Lemley, Mark A., Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1495 (2001).
53. Lemley, Mark A., Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying? 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1525 (2007).
54. Lessig, Lawrence, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004).
55. Lockridge, Lee Ann W., When Is a Use in Commerce a Noncommercial Use? 37 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 337 (2010).
56. Long, Clarisa, Dilution, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 1029 (2006).
57. Long, Clarisa, Information Costs in Patent and Copyright, 90 Va. L. Rev. 465 (2004).
58. Long, Clarisa, Patent Signals, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 625 (2002).
59. Luban, David, Settlements and the Erosion of the Public Realm, 83 Geo. L.J. 2619 (1995).
60. Malani, Anup & Jonathan S. Masur, Raising the Stakes in Patent Cases, 101 Geo. L.J. 637 (2013).
61. Mankiw, N. Gregory, Principles of Economics (6th ed. 2012).
62. Mazzone, Jason, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (2011).
63. McAdams, Richard H., The Expressive Power of Adjudication, 2005 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1043.
64. McCarthy, J. Thomas, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition vol. 1 (4th ed. 2011).
65. Menell, Peter S., Promoting Patent Claim Clarity (UC Berkeley Pub. Law Research Paper No. 2171287, 2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171287.
66. Merges, Robert P., A Brief Note on Blocking Patents and Reverse Equivalents: Biotechnology as an Example, 73 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 878 (1991).
67. Merges, Robert P., Justifying Intellectual Property (2011).
68. Merges, Robert P., et al., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (6th ed. 2012).
69. Meurer, Michael J., Controlling Opportunistic and Anti-Competitive Intellectual Property Litigation, 44 B.C. L. Rev. 509 (2003).
70. Miller, Joseph Scott, Building a Better Bounty: Litigation-Stage Rewards for Defeating Patents, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 667 (2004).
71. Miller, Joseph Scott, Joint Defense or Research Joint Venture? Reassessing the Patent-Challenge-Bloc's Antitrust Status, Stan. Tech. L. Rev. Mar. 30, 2011, at 3, http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/miller-joint-defense.pdf.
72. Monahan, John & Laurens Walker, Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Establishing Social Science in Law, 134 U. Pa. L. Rev. 477 (1986).
73. Moore, James Wm., et al., Moore's Federal Practice vol. 16 (3d ed. 2013).
74. Mueller, Christopher B. & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Evidence (5th ed. 2012).
75. Nimmer, David, An Odyssey Through Copyright's Vicarious Defenses, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 162 (1998).
76. Noh, Brian, Note, Fair Copyright Litigation: The Reverse Class Action Lawsuit, 9 Hastings Bus. L.J. 123 (2012).
77. Oberman, Irina, Maintaining the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Patent Invalidity Challenges in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i
78. Limited Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011), 35 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 439 (2012).
79. Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (2d ed. 1971).
80. O'Rourke, Maureen A., Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 1177 (2000).
81. Parchomovsky, Gideon & Kevin A. Goldman, Fair Use Harbors, 93 Va. L. Rev. 1483 (2007).
82. Parchomovsky, Gideon & Peter Siegelman, Cities, Property, and Positive Externalities, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211 (2012).
83. Parchomovsky, Gideon & Alex Stein, The Relational Contingency of Rights, 98 Va. L. Rev. 1313 (2012).
84. Pasour, E.C., Jr., Pigou, Coase, Common Law, and Environmental Policy: Implications of the Calculation Debate, 87 Pub. Choice 243 (1996).
85. Perzanowski, Aaron & Jason Schultz, Copyright Exhaustion and the Personal Use Dilemma, 96 Minn. L. Rev. 2067 (2012).
86. Pigou, A.C., The Economics of Welfare (4th ed. 1932).
87. Posner, Richard A., Economic Analysis of Law (8th ed. 2011).
88. Reder, Margo E.K. & Christine Neylon O'Brien, Managing the Risk of Trade Secret Loss Due to Job Mobility in an Innovation Economy with the Theory of Inevitable Disclosure, 12 J. High Tech. L. 373 (2012).
89. Samuels, Edward, The Public Domain in Copyright Law, 41 J. Copyright Soc'y U.S.A. 137 (1993).
90. Samuelson, Pamela, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 519 (1999).
91. Samuelson, Pamela, Is Copyright Reform Possible?, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 740 (2013) (reviewing Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (2011)).
92. Samuelson, Pamela & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, 111 Yale L.J. 1575 (2002).
93. Saunders, Kurt M., The Law and Ethics of Trade Secrets: A Case Study, 42 Cal. W. L. Rev. 209 (2006).
94. Shapiro, Carl, Patent System Reform: Economic Analysis and Critique, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1017 (2004).
95. Shavell, Steven, Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law (2004).
96. Shavell, Steven, The Fundamental Divergence Between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System, 26 J. Legal Stud. 575 (1997).
97. Sichelman, Ted, Commercializing Patents, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 341 (2010).
98. Smith, Henry E., Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information, 116 Yale L.J. 1742 (2007).
99. Stein, Alex, The Flawed Probabilistic Foundation of Law and Economics, 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. 199 (2011).
100. Stout, Lynn A., Uncertainty, Dangerous Optimism, and Speculation: An Inquiry into Some Limits of Democratic Governance, 97 Cornell L. Rev. 1177 (2012).
101. Sumida, Matthew K.K., Comment, Defendant Class Actions and Patent Infringement Litigation, 58 UCLA L. Rev. 843 (2011).
102. Sykes, Alan O., The Questionable Case for Subsidies Regulation: A Comparative Perspective, 2 J. Legal Analysis 473 (2010).
103. Taylor, David O., Patent Misjoinder, 88 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 652 (2013).
104. Thomas, John R., Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 305.
105. Tushnet, Rebecca, Worth a Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 683 (2012).
106. Van Alstine, Michael P., The Costs of Legal Change, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 789 (2002).
107. Vermont, Samson, Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 475 (2006).
108. Wagner, R. Polk, Information Wants to Be Free: Intellectual Property and the Mythologies of Control, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 995 (2003).
109. Walters, Radiance A., Partial Forfeiture: The Best Compromise in Trademark Licensing Protocol, 91 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 126 (2009).
110. Weder, Rolf & Herbert G. Grubel, The New Growth Theory and Coasean Economics: Institutions to Capture Externalities, 129 Rev. World Econ. 488 (1993).
111. Weinreb, Lloyd L., Fair's Fair: A Comment on the Fair Use Doctrine, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1137 (1990).
112. Zittrain, Jonathan, What the Publisher Can Teach the Patient: Intellectual Property and Privacy in an Era of Trusted Privication, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 1201 (2000).