Software patents and the return of functional claiming

Wisconsin Law Review

Volumn 2013, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 905-964

  Lemley, Mark A ^a  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888260544     PISSN: 0043650X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (194)

1. Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims - American Perspectives, 21 INT'L REV. INDUS. PROP. & COPYRIGHT L. 497, 499 (1990) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim.").
2. John Allison, et al. show that the most-asserted software patents - those litigated in eight or more cases - lose in court roughly 90% of the time.
3. John R. Allison et al., Patent Quality and Settlement among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 GEO. L.J. 677, 680-81 (2011)
4. Shawn P. Miller, What's the Connection between Repeat Litigation and Patent Quality? A (Partial) Defense of the Most Litigated Patents, 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 313, 332 (2013), available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/ mostlitigatedpatents.pdf.
5. Ernest B. Lipscomb III, 6 LIPSCOMB'S WALKER ON PATENTS § 21:17, at 315-16 (3d ed. 1987)
6. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2111, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/ documents/2100-2111-04.htm.
7. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 1743, 1766-67 (2009)
8. Michael Risch, America's First Patents, 64 FLA. L. REV. 1279 (2012).
9. Jeanne C. Fromer, Claiming Intellectual Property, 76 U. CHI. L. REV. 719, 726-27 (2009).
10. 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, 2004 (2005)
11. John R. Thomas, The Question Concerning Patent Law and Pioneer Inventions, 10 HIGH TECH. L.J. 35, 37 (1995)
12. Brian J. Love, Interring the Pioneer Invention Doctrine, 90 N.C. L. REV. 379 (2012)
13. Jeffrey A. Lefstin, The Formal Structure of Patent Law and the Limits of Enablement, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1141, 1167-74 (2008).
14. Jeanne Fromer & Mark A. Lemley, The Audience in IP Infringement, 112 MICH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract-id=2272235
15. Michael Abramowicz, An Industrial Organization Approach to Copyright Law, 46 WM. & MARY L. REV. 33 (2004)
16. Christopher S. Yoo, Copyright and Product Differentiation, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 212, 218-19 (2004)
17. Christopher S. Yoo, Copyright and Public Good Economics: A Misunderstood Relation, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 635, 706-14 (2006)
18. Michael Abramowicz & John F. Duffy, Intellectual Property for Market Experimentation, 83 N.Y.U. L. REV. 337, 395-408 (2008)
19. Michael Abramowicz, The Danger of Underdeveloped Patent Prospects, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 1065 (2007)
20. Mark A. Lemley & Mark P. McKenna, Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP, 100 GEO. L.J. 2055, 2081-91 (2012).
21. E.C. Reynolds, Mechanical Processes and Functional Claims, in 1 PATENT OFFICE PAPERS No. 32, 1 (Charles W. Mortimer ed. 1917)
22. Doug Lichtman & Mark A. Lemley, Rethinking Patent Law's Presumption of Validity, 60 STAN. L. REV. 45, 47-59 (2007).
23. JOHN ANDERSON, JR., INVENTING FLIGHT: THE WRIGHT BROTHERS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS 101 (2004)
24. TOM D. CROUCH, A DREAM OF WINGS: AMERICANS AND THE AIRPLANE, 1875-1905, at 229-30, 251-52 (1989).
25. Mark A. Lemley, The Myth of the Sole Inventor, 110 MICH. L. REV. 709, 726 (2012).
26. The Wright Brothers Patent War, WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The-Wright-brothers-patent-war (last visited Sept. 2, 2013).
27. Glenn Curtiss and the Wright Patent Battles, U.S. CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT COMM'N, http://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20080916225553/http:// centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright-Bros/Patent-Battles/WR12.htm (last visited Sept. 2, 2013)
28. ROBERT C. FABER, LANDIS ON MECHANICS OF PATENT CLAIM DRAFTING § 34 (3d ed. 1990).
29. P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, reprinted in 75 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 161, 186 (1993).
30. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 STAN. L. REV. 955 (2007).
31. Note, Everlasting Software, 125 HARV. L. REV. 1454, 1460 n.38 (2012)
32. Dennis Crouch, Means Plus Function Claiming, PATENTLY-O, (Jan. 14, 2013), http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/01/means-plus-functionclaiming.html.
33. Sebastian Zimmeck, Use of Functional Claim Elements for Patenting Computer Programs, 12 J. HIGH TECH. L. 168 (2011).
34. Ronald L. Lacy et al., Crafting the Claims, in ELECTRONIC AND SOFTWARE PATENTS: LAW AND PRACTICE (2d ed. 2011)
35. Rudolph P. Hofmann, Jr. & Edward P. Heller, III, The Rosetta Stone for the Doctrines of Means-Plus-Function Patent Claims, 23 RUTGERS COMP. & TECH. L.J. 227, 231 (1997)
36. Michael A. Molano & Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross, Traps for the Unwary: Issues Surrounding Means-Plus-Function Claims in the Software Context, in FUNDAMENTALS OF PATENT PROSECUTION 2011: A BOOT CAMP FOR CLAIM DRAFTING AND AMENDMENT WRITING (Practising Law Institute 2011)
37. Ryan Sharp, Can Beauregard Claims Show You the Money?, 2 CYBARIS: INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 25, 34 (2011), ⋯ . http://web.wmitchell.edu/cybaris/wp- content/uploads/2011/08/Sharp.pdf
38. Mark A. Lemley, David W. O'Brien, & Wade Malone, Capability Claiming n.13 (2011) (unpublished manuscript), available at https://www.law.stanford.edu/ sites/default/files/event/266396/media/slspublic/Panel%201%20-%20Mark%20Lemley, %20et%20al%20-%20Capability%20Claiming.pdf.
39. Lawrence D. Graham & Richard O. Zerbe, Jr., Economically Efficient Treatment of Computer Software: Reverse Engineering, Protection, and Disclosure, 22 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 61, 96-97 (1996)
40. Greg R. Vetter, Patent Law's Unpredictability Doctrine and the Software Arts, 76 MO. L. REV. 763 (2011)
41. Anthony J. Mahajan, Note, Intellectual Property, Contracts, and Reverse Engineering After ProCD: A Proposed Compromise for Computer Software, 67 FORDHAM L. REV. 3297, 3317 (1998).
42. Sharon Barkume & Michael R. Bielski, Strict Interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 112: Requires Universities to Examine Their Patenting Methods, 28 TOURO L. REV. 183, 197-98 (2012)
43. Elise S. Edlin, Computer Claim Disarray: Untangling the Means-Plus-Function Doctrine to Eliminate Impermissible Functional Claiming in Software Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 417, 419-20 (2013)
44. Christa J. Laser, A Definite Claim on Claim Indefiniteness: An Empirical Study of Definiteness Cases of the Past Decade with a Focus on the Federal Circuit and the Insolubly Ambiguous Standard, 10 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 25, 37 tbls.6 & 7, 39-41 (2010)
45. Kevin Emerson Collins, Patent Law's Functionality Malfunction and Its Implications for the Problem of Overbroad, Functional Software Patents 14-17 (Wash. Univ. Sch. of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper No. 13-2-1, 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2221950
46. CHRISTINA BOHANNAN & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, CREATION WITHOUT RESTRAINT: PROMOTING LIBERTY AND RIVALRY IN INNOVATION 125 (2012).
47. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1991, 2028-29 (2007).
48. Information on patents essential to 3G wireless technology is collected at http://www.3gpp2.org/
49. RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT 2, http://www.3gpp2.org/ (last visited Sept. 18, 2013)
50. Sutherland, WiMax, 802.11n Renew Patent Debate, WIFI PLANET (Apr. 7, 2005), http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3495951.
51. David Drummond, When Patents Attack Android, GOOGLE: OFFICIAL BLOG (Aug. 3, 2011), http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android. html (statement of David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer at Google).
52. Carl Shapiro, Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting, in 1 INNOVATION POL'Y AND ECON. 119, 120 (2000).
53. Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 SCI. 698 (1998).
54. Christian A. Chu, Empirical Analysis of the Federal Circuit's Claim Construction Trends, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1075 (2001)
55. Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1, 2-4 (2001)
56. Kimberly A. Moore, Markman Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable?, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 231, 231-34 (2005)
57. David L. Schwartz, Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 MICH. L. REV. 223, 248-49 (2008)
58. David L. Schwartz, Pre-Markman Reversal Rates, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1073 (2010)
59. J. Jonas Anderson & Peter S. Menell, Informal Deference: An Historical, Empirical, and Normative Analysis of Patent Claim Construction, 108 NW. U. L. REV. (forthcoming 2012) (manuscript at 54), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2150360.
60. Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 3-5, 7-9 (2001)
61. John R. Allison & Ronald J. Mann, The Disputed Quality of Software Patents, 85 WASH. U. L. REV. 297, 304-08, 313-15 (2007)
62. Robert Hunt & James E. Bessen, The Software Patent Experiment, BUS. REV. (Fed. Reserve Bank of Phila.) 22, 24-26, 31 (2004), available at http://www.phil.frb.org/files/br/brq304rh.pdf
63. Arti K. Rai, John R. Allison & Bhaven N. Sampat, University Software Ownership and Litigation: A First Examination, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1519, 1529-33 (2009)
64. James E. Bessen, A Generation of Software Patents 2-3, 12-14 (Boston Univ. Sch. of Law, Working Paper No. 11-31, 2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1868979
65. James E. Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, An Empirical Look at Software Patents 4-5 (Fed. Reserve Bank of Phila. Working Paper No. 03-17/R, 2004), available at http://www.researchoninnovation.org/swpat.pdf
66. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Probabilistic Patents, 19 J. ECON. PERSP. 75, 93-95 (2005).
67. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 205 (1998)
68. Colleen V. Chien, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, 62 HASTINGS L.J. 297, 301, 339 (2010)
69. 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, 1582, 1607 (2009)
70. Gideon Parchomovsky & R. Polk Wagner, Patent Portfolios, 154 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2005).
71. Google bought Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. Google to Acquire Motorola Mobility: Combination Will Supercharge Android, Enhance Competition, and Offer Wonderful User Experiences (Aug. 15, 2011), http://investor.google.com/releases/2011/0815.html.
72. Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, On the Apparent Failure of Patents: A Response to Bessen and Meurer, 22 ACAD. MGMT. PERSP., 21, 26 fig.2. (2008)
73. Colleen V. Chien, Startups and Patent Trolls, 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract-id=2146251
74. John R. Allison et al., Patent Litigation and the Internet, 2012 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 3, 4 (2012), http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/allison-patent- litigation.pdf
75. Allison et al., Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2009)
76. James C. Pistorino & Susan J. Crane, 2011 Trends in Patent Case Filings: Eastern District of Texas Continues to Lead until American Invents Act Is Signed, 83 PAT., TRADEMARK, & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA) 710 (2012)
77. Colleen V. Chien, Presentation: Patent Assertion Entities, 23 (Dec. 10, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2187314.
78. Colleen V. Chien & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 17 (2012).
79. Tom Ewing & Robin Feldman, The Giants among Us, 2012 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1, 1 (2012), http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf
80. Tom Ewing, Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights by Corporations and Investors, 4 HASTINGS SCI. & TECH. L.J. 1, 5 (2012).
81. James E. Bessen et al., The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls 17 (Boston Univ. Sch. of Law, Working Paper No. 11-45, 2011), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1930272.
82. Robert P. Merges, The Trouble with Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking, and Patent Law Reform, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1583, 1599 (2009)
83. Catherine Tucker, Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion 4 (Tilburg Law & Econ. Ctr., Discussion Paper No. 2012-030), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2136955
84. Mark A. Lemley, Ignoring Patents, 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 19, 21-22.
85. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Patent Costs and Unlicensed Use of Patented Inventions, 78 U. CHI. L. REV. 53, 54 (2011)
86. Colleen V. Chien & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 CORNELL L. REV. 1 (2012)
87. Colleen V. Chien, Protecting Domestic Industries at the ITC, 28 SANTA CLARA COMP. & HIGH TECH. L.J. 169 (2011).
88. DAN L. BURK & MARK A. LEMLEY, THE PATENT CRISIS AND HOW THE COURTS CAN SOLVE IT 38-41 (2009)
89. CARL SHAPIRO & HAL R. VARIAN, INFORMATION RULES: A STRATEGIC GUIDE TO THE NETWORK ECONOMY, NETWORK RULES 199-200 (1999)
90. Mark A. Lemley & David McGowan, Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects, 86 CAL. L. REV. 479, 491-92 (1998)
91. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation, 16 RAND J. ECON. 70, 70 (1985)
92. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, 75 AM. ECON. REV. 424, 424 (1985)
93. YOCHAI BENKLER, THE WEALTH OF NETWORKS 63-67 (2006)
94. ERIC S. RAYMOND, THE CATHEDRAL AND THE BAZAAR: MUSINGS ON LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE BY AN ACCIDENTAL REVOLUTIONARY 64-67 (1999)
95. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, Some Simple Economics of Open Source, 50 J. INDUS. ECON. 197, 212-15 (2002)
96. Yochai Benkler, Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm, 112 YALE L.J. 369, 445-46 (2002)
97. James E. Bessen, Open Source Software: Free Provision of Complex Public Goods, in THE ECONOMICS OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 57, 79-80 (Jürgen Bitzer & Philipp J. H. Schröeder, eds., 2006)
98. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, Market Structure and Property Rights in Open Source Industries, 30 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 325, (2009)
99. David McGowan, Legal Implications of Open-Source Software, 2001 U. ILL. L. REV. 241
100. Greg R. Vetter, Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 2087, 2129-31 (2009)
101. Michael Abramowicz & John F. Duffy, The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 YALE L.J. 1590, 1597-98 (2011)
102. Jonathan M. Barnett, Intellectual Property as a Law of Organization, 84 S. CAL. L. REV. 785, 808 (2011)
103. Dan L. Burk & Brett H. McDonnell, The Goldilocks Hypothesis: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights at the Boundary of the Firm, 2007 U. ILL. L. REV. 575, 617.
104. JAMES E. BESSEN & MICHAEL MEURER, PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK 137 (2008).
105. Mark A. Lemley & A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forest for the Trolls, 113 COLUM. L. REV. (forthcoming 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2269087.
106. League for Programming Freedom, Software Patents: Is This the Future of Programming?, DR. DOBB'S J., Nov. 1990, at 56
107. Brian J. Love, Why Patentable Subject Matter Matters for Software, 81 GEO. WASH. L. REV. ARGUENDO 1 (2012), http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/09/Love-Arguendo-81-1.pdf
108. Alan Newell, Response: The Models Are Broken, The Models Are Broken!, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 1023, 1025 (1986)
109. Pamela Samuelson, Benson Revisited: The Case against Patent Protection for Algorithms and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions, 39 EMORY L.J. 1025, 1135-36 (1990)
110. Joshua D. Sarnoff, Patent-Eligible Inventions after Bilski: History and Theory, 63 HASTINGS L.J. 53, 119-20 (2011).
111. Donald S. Chisum, The Patentability of Algorithms, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 959, 1014-15 (1986)
112. Mark A. Lemley et al., Life after Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315, 1326-27 (2011)
113. Robert P. Merges, Software and Patent Scope: A Report from the Middle Innings, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1627, 1656-57 (2007)
114. Michael Risch, Everything Is Patentable, 75 TENN. L. REV. 591, 622 (2008).
115. Peter S. Menell, Forty Years of Wandering in the Wilderness and No Closer to the Promised Land: Bilski's Superficial Textualism and the Missed Opportunity to Return Patent Law to Its Technology Mooring, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1289, 1312-13 (2011)
116. John R. Thomas, The Patenting of the Liberal Professions, 40 B.C. L. REV. 1139, 1145-47 (1999).
117. 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 198 (2004)
118. John F. Duffy, Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability, 51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 609, 614 (2009)
119. Reinier B. Bakels, Are Software Patents Something Special?, in BIOTECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE PATENT LAW: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS 131, 131-34
120. John M. Golden, Patentable Subject Matter and Institutional Choice, 89 TEX. L. REV. 1041, 1111 (2011)
121. 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, 736 (2006)
122. John R. Allison & Emerson H. Tiller, The Business Method Patent Myth, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 987, 1081-82 (2003).
123. Julie E. Cohen, Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of "Lock-Out" Programs, 68 S. CAL. L. REV. 1091, 1179 (1995)
124. 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, 589-90 (1999)
125. Andrew Nieh, Software Wars: The Patent Menace, 55 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 295, 324-25 (2010-2011)
126. Simson L. Garfinkel, Patently Absurd, WIRED, July 1994, at 104, 142.
127. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 205 (1998)
128. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, The Selection of Disputes for Litigation, 13 J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 5 (1984)
129. Daniel Kessler et al., Explaining Deviations from the Fifty-Percent Rule: A Multimodal Approach to the Selection of Cases for Litigation, 25 J. LEGAL STUD. 233 (1996)
130. Steven Shavell, Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial is Possible, 25 J. LEGAL STUD. 493, 498-501 (1996)
131. Jason Rantanen, Why Priest-Klein Cannot Apply to Individual Issues in Patent Cases (U. Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-15, 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2132810.
132. Mark A. Lemley, The Fractioning of Patent Law, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE COMMON LAW 504, 506 n.14 (Cambridge University Press 2013)
133. Joseph Farrell & 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, 958 (2004)
134. Joseph Scott Miller, Building a Better Bounty: Litigation-Stage Rewards for Defeating Patents, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 667, 668-73 (2004)
135. John R. Thomas, Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties, 2001 U. ILL. L. REV. 305, 332-33.
136. Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, 1496-97 (2001).
137. Mark A. Lemley, Fixing the Patent Office, in 13 INNOVATION POLICY AND THE ECONOMY 83 (2013).
138. R. Polk Wagner, Understanding Patent-Quality Mechanisms, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 2135, 2163-65 (2009).
139. Jeanne C. Fromer, The Layers of Obviousness in Patent Law, 22 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 75, 96 (2008)
140. Peter S. Menell & Michael J. Meurer, Notice Failure and Notice Externalities, J. LEGAL ANALYSIS (forthcoming 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1973171.
141. Mark A. Lemley & Kimberly A. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B.U. L. REV. 63, 71-83 (2004).
142. Shawn P. Miller, Do 'Fuzzy' Software Patent Boundaries Explain High Claim Construction Reversal Rates? 9 (Feb. 7, 2013) (working paper 2013), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2139146.
143. Mark A. Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 TEX. L. REV. 1031 (2005)
144. Emily Michiko Morris, Res or Rules? Patents and the (Uncertain) Rules of the Game, 18 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 481, 494 (2012).
145. Kristen Osenga, Linguistics and Patent Claim Construction, 38 RUTGERS L.J. 61, 69-70 (2006).
146. Dennis Crouch, Total Patent Application Pendency, PATENTLY-O (Mar. 18, 2012, 9:43 AM), http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/total-patent- applicationpendency.html
147. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Who's Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution, 53 VAND. L. REV. 2099, 2118 (2000).
148. Christina Mulligan & Timothy B. Lee, Scaling the Patent System, 68 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 289, 304-05 (2012).
149. Harry Surden, Efficient Uncertainty in Patent Interpretation, 68 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1737 (2011).
150. Mark A. Lemley, Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?, 105 MICH. L. REV. 1525, 1525 (2007).
151. Samson Vermont, Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 MICH. L. REV. 475 (2006)
152. Samson Vermont, The Angel Is in the Big Picture: A Response to Lemley, 105 MICH. L. REV. 1537 (2007)
153. Carl Shapiro, Prior User Rights, 96 AM. ECON. REV. 92, 95 (2006)
154. Christopher A. Cotropia & Mark A. Lemley, Copying in Patent Law, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1421, 1443 (2009).
155. Christopher A. Cotropia, The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law, 61 HASTINGS L.J. 65 (2009)
156. Ted Sichelman, Commercializing Patents, 62 STAN. L. REV. 341 (2010)
157. Timothy R. Holbrook, The Supreme Court's Complicity in Federal Circuit Formalism, 20 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 1, 1-2 (2003)
158. Lucas S. Osborn, Instrumentalism at the Federal Circuit, 56 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 419, 425-26 (2012)
159. Arti K. Rai, Engaging Facts and Policy: A Multi-Institutional Approach to Patent System Reform, 103 COLUM. L. REV. 1035, 1102-22 (2003)
160. John R. Thomas, Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 AM. U. L. REV. 771 (2003).
161. Peter Lee, Patent Law and the Two Cultures, 120 YALE L.J. 2, 27-29 (2010).
162. Patrick G. Burns, A Simpler Approach to Claim Construction, 77 PAT., TRADEMARK, & COPYRIGHT J. (BNA) 717 (2009).
163. Matthew J. Conigliaro et al., Foreseeability in Patent Law, 16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1045, 1048 (2001)
164. Craig Allen Nard, A Theory of Claim Interpretation, 14 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1, 40-41 (2000)
165. Randall M. Whitmeyer, Comment, A Plea for Due Processes: Defining the Proper Scope of Patent Protection for Computer Software, 85 NW. U. L. REV. 1103, 1106 (1991)
166. David L. Schwartz, Back from the Future: Retroactivity at the Federal Circuit, 89 IND. L.J. (forthcoming 2014) (manuscript at 43-45), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1945554
167. Michael J. Graetz, Legal Transitions: The Case of Retroactivity in Income Tax Revision, 126 U. PA. L. REV. 47, 49-50 (1977)
168. Louis Kaplow, An Economic Analysis of Legal Transitions, 99 HARV. L. REV. 509, 511-12 (1986).
169. J. Nicholas Bunch, Takings, Judicial Takings, and Patent Law, 83 TEX. L. REV. 1747, 1762 (2005)
170. Mark A. Lemley, The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms, 104 MICH. L. REV. 101, 107-08 (2005)
171. Brian J. Love, An Empirical Study of Patent Litigation Timing: Could a Patent Term Reduction Decimate Trolls without Harming Innovators?, 161 U. PA. L. REV. 1309, 1336-40 (2013)
172. Lee Petherbridge, On the Decline of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 31 CARDOZO L. REV. 1371 (2010)
173. David L. Schwartz, Explaining the Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 26 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1157 (2011)
174. Doug Lichtman, Substitutes for the Doctrine of Equivalents: A Response to Meurer and Nard, 93 GEO. L.J. 2013 (2005)
175. Robert R. Sachs, Comments in Response to the Patent and Trademark Office's Proposed Examination Guidelines for Computer-Implemented Inventions, 2 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 103, 107 (1995-96)
176. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Quantum Patent Mechanics, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 29, 32-40 (2005)
177. Tun-Jen Chiang, The Levels of Abstraction Problem in Patent Law, 105 NW. U. L. REV. 1097 (2011)
178. Andrew Chin, On Abstraction and Equivalence in Software Patent Doctrine: A Response to Bessen, Meurer and Klemens, 16 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 197 (2009).
179. Louis Kaplow, Why (Ever) Define Markets?, 124 HARV. L. REV. 437, 500-01 (2010)
180. Juan A. Correa & Carmine Ornaghi, Competition & Innovation: New Evidence from US Patent and Productivity Data (Oct. 21, 2011) (working paper), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1947357
181. Kenneth J. Arrow, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in NAT'L BUREAU ECON. RESEARCH, THE RATE AND DIRECTION OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS 609, 620 (1962)
182. MORTON I. KAMIEN & NANCY L. SCHWARTZ, MARKET STRUCTURE AND INNOVATION 16 (1982)
183. F.M. SHERER & DAVID ROSS, INDUSTRIAL MARKET STRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 660 (3d ed. 1990)
184. Robert P. Merges & Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 839 (1990)
185. Kenneth W. Dam, The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law, 23 J. LEGAL STUD. 247, 252 (1994)
186. Arti Kaur Rai, Evolving Scientific Norms and Intellectual Property Rights: A Reply to Kieff, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 707, 709-10 (2001)
187. Mark A. Lemley & Lawrence Lessig, The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, 48 UCLA L. REV. 925, 960-62 (2001)
188. Howard A. Shelanski, Competition and Deployment of New Technology in U.S. Telecommunications, 2000 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 85, 85
189. Aaron R. Feigelson, Endangered Species: The Jepson Claim, 12:01 TUESDAY, http://www.1201tuesday.com/1201-tuesday/2009/06/jepson.html (last updated June 4, 2009, 1:56 PM).
190. Kip Werking, The Illogic of the Algorithm Requirement for Software Patent Claims, IPWATCHDOG (Oct. 12, 2012, 7:20 AM) http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/ 12/the-illogic-of-the-algorithm-requirementfor-software-patent-claims/id=28635/
191. Andrew Chin, Alappat Redux: Support for Functional Language in Software Patent Claims (UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2272016, 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2272016
192. Ted Sichelman, Purging Patent Law of "Private Law" Remedies, 92 TEX. L. REV. (forthcoming 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract-id=1932834
193. Pamela Samuelson & Jason Schultz, "Clues" for Determining whether Business and Service Innovations Are Unpatentable Abstract Ideas, 15 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 109 (2011)
194. Bernard Chao, Finding the Point of Novelty in Software Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. (forthcoming 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2174527.