Presume nothing: Rethinking patent law's presumption of validity

Competition Policy and Patent Law under Uncertainty: Regulating Innovation

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 300-330

  Lichtman, Douglas G ^a   Lemley, Mark A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924740170     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511974984.011     Document Type: Chapter

References (60)

1. Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1495 (2001).
2. Beth Simone Noveck, “Peer to Patent”: Collective Intelligence, Open Review, and Patent Reform, 20 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 123 (2006).
3. Sara Schaefer Munoz, Patent No. 6,004,596: Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich, Wall St. J., Apr. 5, 2005, at B1.
4. Adam Mossoff, Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents? Reevaluating the Patent “Privilege” in Historical Context, 92 Cornell L. Rev. 953 (2007).
5. 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, 952-60 (2004)
6. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007)
7. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, How Strong Are Weak Patents? (Competition Pol’y Ctr., Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley, Paper No. CPC05-54, 2007), available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/weak.pdf
8. Carl Shapiro, Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties (Competition Pol’y Ctr., Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley, Paper No. CPC06-062, 2006), available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/royalties.pdf.
9. Christopher R. Leslie, The Anticompetitive Effects of Unenforced Invalid Patents, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 101 (2006).
10. Matthew Sag & Kurt Rohde, Patent Reform and Differential Impact, 8 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 1 (2007)
11. Mark D. Janis, Rethinking Reexamination: Toward a Viable Administrative Revocation System for U.S. Patent Law, 11 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (1997)
12. 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 (1999)
13. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Probabilistic Patents, 19 J. Econ. Persp. 75 (2005).
14. Kristen Osenga, Entrance Ramps, Tolls, and Express Lanes - Proposals for Decreasing Traffic Congestion in the Patent Office, 33 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 119-130 (2005).
15. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Ethics in the Practice of Law 121 (1978)
16. David Luban, The Adversary System Excuse, in The Good Lawyer: Lawyers’ Roles and Lawyers’ Ethics 83-94 (David Luban ed., 1984)
17. Stephen A. Saltzburg, Lawyers, Clients, and the Adversary System, 37 Mercer L. Rev. 647-656 (1986)
18. Lon Fuller, The Adversary System, in Talks on American Law 30-31 (Harold J. Berman ed., 1961)
19. Stephen McG. Bundy & Einer Richard Elhauge, Do Lawyers Improve the Adversary System? A General Theory of Litigation Advice and Its Regulation, 79 Cal. L. Rev. 315 (1991)
20. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: ACase Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1989)
21. Edmund W. Kitch, Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 293
22. Robert P. Merges, Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 Cal. L. Rev. 803 (1988).
23. Mark A. Lemley & Kimberly A. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 63 (2004)
24. Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2001)
25. Kimberly A. Moore, Markman. Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable?, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231-239 (2005)
26. Ian Ayres & Paul Klemperer, Limiting Patentees’ Market Power Without Reducing Innovation Incentives: The Perverse Benefits of Uncertainty and Non-Injunctive Remedies, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 985 (1999).
27. Stuart Minor Benjamin & Arti K. Rai, Who’s Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law, 95 Geo. L.J. 269 (2007)
28. Orin S. Kerr, Rethinking Patent Law in the Administrative State, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 127 (2000)
29. Craig Allen Nard, Certainty, Fence Building, and the Useful Arts, 74 Ind. L.J. 759 (1999)
30. J. H. Reichman, From Free Riders to Fair Followers: Global Competition Under the TRIPS Agreement, 29 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 11 (1997)
31. John R. Thomas, Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 305.
32. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Probabilistic Patents, 19 J. Econ. Persp. 75 (2005).
33. Kristen Osenga, Entrance Ramps, Tolls, and Express Lanes - Proposals for Decreasing Traffic Congestion in the Patent Office, 33 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 119-130 (2005).
34. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Ethics in the Practice of Law 121 (1978)
35. David Luban, The Adversary System Excuse, in The Good Lawyer: Lawyers’ Roles and Lawyers’ Ethics 83, 94 (David Luban ed., 1984)
36. Stephen A. Saltzburg, Lawyers, Clients, and the Adversary System, 37 Mercer L. Rev. 647-656 (1986)
37. Lon Fuller, The Adversary System, in Talks on American Law 30, 31 (Harold J. Berman ed., 1961)
38. Stephen McG. Bundy & Einer Richard Elhauge, Do Lawyers Improve the Adversary System? A General Theory of Litigation Advice and Its Regulation, 79 Cal. L. Rev. 315 1991
39. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: ACase Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1989)
40. Edmund W. Kitch, Graham v. John Deere Co.: New Standards for Patents, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 293
41. Robert P. Merges, Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 Cal. L. Rev. 803 (1988).
42. Mark A. Lemley & Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2001)
43. Kimberly A. Moore, Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?, 15 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2001)
44. Kimberly A. Moore, Markman Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable?, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231-239 (2005)
45. Ian Ayres & Paul Klemperer, Limiting Patentees’ Market Power Without Reducing Innovation Incentives: The Perverse Benefits of Uncertainty and Non-Injunctive Remedies, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 985 (1999).
46. Gideon Parchomovsky & R. Polk Wagner, Patent Portfolios, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2005).
47. Orin S. Kerr, Rethinking Patent Law in the Administrative State, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 127 (2000)
48. Craig Allen Nard, Deference, Defiance, and the Useful Arts, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 14-15 (1995).
49. John F. Duffy, The Festo Decision and the Return of the Supreme Court to the Bar of Patents, 2002 Sup. Ct. Rev. 273.
50. F.M. Scherer, The Innovation Lottery, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society 3 (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss et al., eds., 2001).
51. John R. Allison et al., Valuable Patents, 92 Geo. L.J. 435-461 (2004).
52. Clarisa Long, Patent Signals, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 625 (2002).
53. Arti K. Rai, Allocating Power over Fact-Finding in the Patent System, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 907, 918-19 (2004)
54. Michael Meehan, An Economic Approach for Increasing Certainty in the Patent System 48-52 (Jan. 12, 2007) (unpublished manuscript, on file with authors).
55. Daralyn J. Durie & Mark A. Lemley, A Realist Approach to the Obviousness of Inventions (unpublished manuscript, on file with authors).
56. William C. Rooklidge & Matthew F.Weil, En Banc Review, Horror Pleni, and the Resolution of Patent Law Conflicts, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 787 (2000).
57. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp? (2007) (unpublished manuscript, on file with authors)
58. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, The Selection of Disputes for Litigation, 13 J. Legal Stud. 1-16 (1984).
59. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 205-06 (1998)
60. Jay P. Kesan & Gwendolyn G. Ball, How Are Patent Cases Resolved? An Empirical Examination of the Adjudication and Settlement of Patent Disputes, 84 Wash