Dynamic claim interpretation

Intellectual Property and the Common Law

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 107-122

  Burk, Dan L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890671097     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139013550.007     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Craig Allen Nard, Legal Forms and the Common Law of Patents, 90 B.U. L. Rev. 51 (2011)
2. Timothy R. Holbrook, Substantive Versus Process-Based Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 9 Lewis &Clark L. Rev. 123 (2005)
3. John R. Thomas, Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 Am. U.L. Rev. 771 (2003).
4. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Quantum Patent Mechanics, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 29, 49 (2005).
5. Craig Allen Nard, A Theory of Claim Interpretation, 14 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 1 (2000)
6. Kristen Osenga, Linguistics and Patent Claim Construction, 38 Rutgers L.J. 61 (2006)
7. Kelly Casey Mullally, Patent Hermeneutics: Form and Substance in Claim Construction, 59 Fla. L. Rev. 333 (2007).
8. Irah H. Donner, Patent Prosecution: Law, Practice, and Procedure 218 (5th ed. 2007).
9. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, 157 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1743, 1774–75 (2009).
10. Jeanne Fromer, Claiming Intellectual Property, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 719, 744 (2009).
11. Dan L. Burk, The Role of Patent Law in Knowledge Codification, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1009, 1031 (2008).
12. Toshiko Takenaka, Interpreting PatentClaims: TheUnited States, Germany and Japan (1995).
13. John R. Thomas, On Preparatory Texts and Proprietary Technologies: The Place of Prosecution Histories in Patent Claim Interpretation, 47 UCLA L. Rev. 183, 210 (1999).
14. William Eskridge, & Philip Frickey, The Supreme Court, 1993 Term – Foreword: Law at Equilibrium, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 26, 97–108 (1994)
15. R. Polk Wagner & Lee Petherbridge, Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance, 152 U. Pa L. Rev. 1105, 1111 (2004).
16. Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 2 (2001)
17. Andrew T. Zidel, Patent Claim Construction in Trial Courts: A Study Showing the Need for Clear Guidance From the Federal Circuit, 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. 711 (2003)
18. Kimberley A. Moore, Markman Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable?, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231 (2005).
19. David L. Schwartz, Practice Makes Perfect? AnEmpirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 Mich L. Rev. 223 (2008)
20. David L. Schwartz, Courting Specialization: An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Comparing Patent Litigation Before Federal District Courts and the International Trade Commission, 50 William & Mary L. Rev. 1699 (2009).
21. Peter Baker & Neil A. Lewis, Sotomayor Vows “Fidelity to the Law” as Hearings Start, N.Y. Times (July 13, 2009)
22. Jacob Bronowski, The Laws of Nature and the Nature of Laws, in The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination 65, 80 (1978).
23. Timothy Holbrook, Substance vs. Process Based Formalism in Claim Construction, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 123 (2005)
24. Peter Lee, Patent Law and the Two Cultures, 120 Yale L.J. 2, 46 (2010).
25. Jonathan Siegel, Naive Textualism in Patent Law, 76 Brook. L. Rev. 1019–32 (2011)
26. Jacob Bronowski, The Abacus and the Rose: A New Dialogue on Two World Systems, in Science and Human Values 77, 88–91 (Harper & Row rev. ed. 1965).
27. Dan L. Burk, Copyright and Paratext in On-Line Gaming in Emerging Ethical Issues of Life in Virtual Worlds 33 (Charles Wankel & Sean Malleck eds., 2010)
28. Dan L. Burk, Do Patents Have Gender?, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 881 (2011)
29. Kara Swanson, Getting a Grip on the Corset: Gender, Sexuality and Patent Law, 23 Yale J.L. & Feminism 57 (2011).