The fractioning of patent law

Intellectual Property and the Common Law

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 504-513

  Lemley, Mark A ^a  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925637356     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139013550.028     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. Doug Lichtman & Mark A. Lemley, Rethinking Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 45 (2007).
2. Mark A. Lemley & Kimberly A. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 63 (2004).
3. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 889 (2001)
4. Mark A. Lemley, Where to File Your Patent Case, 38 AIPLA Q.J. 401 (2010).
5. Julie Creswell, So Small a Town, So Many Patent Suits, N.Y. Times (Sept. 24, 2006), http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/24ward.html?scp=1&sq=marshall%20texas%20patent&st=cse (last visited Feb. 27, 2012).
6. Kimberly A. Moore, Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases: An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 365 (2000)
7. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185 (1998)
8. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007)
9. Daralyn J. Durie & Mark A. Lemley, A Structured Approach to Calculating Reasonable Royalties, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 627 (2010).
10. John M. Golden, “Patent Trolls” and Patent Remedies, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 2111 (2007)
11. Einer Elhauge, Do Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Lead to Systematically Excessive Royalties?, 4 J. Competition L. & Econ. 535 (2008).
12. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking: Reply, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 2161 (2007)
13. Thomas F. Cotter, Patent Holdup, Patent Remedies, and Antitrust Responses, 34 J. Corp. L. 1151 (2009).
14. Paul M. Janicke & LiLan Ren, Who Wins Patent Infringement Cases?, 34 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2006).
15. Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Do Case Outcomes Really Reveal Anything About the Legal System? Win Rates and Removal Jurisdiction, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 581, 594 (1998).
16. John R. Allison et al., Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 Geo. L.J. 677 (2011).
17. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, The Selection of Disputes for Litigation, 13 J. Legal Stud. 1, 24 (1984)
18. Steven Shavell, Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial is Possible, 25 J. Legal Stud. 493 (1996)
19. 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 (2009).
20. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1743 (2009).
21. Jeanne C. Fromer, Claiming Intellectual Property, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 719 (2009)
22. William Redin Woodward, Definiteness and Particularity in Patent Claims, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 755, 757 (1948)
23. Karl B. Lutz, Evolution of the Claims of U.S. Patents, 20 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 457 (1938).
24. Mark A. Lemley, WhyDo JuriesDecide Whether Patents Are Valid? Va. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014)
25. Shyamkrishna Balganesh, The Pragmatic Incrementalism of Common Law Intellectual Property, 63 Vand. L. Rev. 1543 (2010).
26. Joshua D. Sarnoff, The Historic and Modern Doctrine of Equivalents and Claiming the Future, 87 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 371, 441 (2005).
27. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Quantum Patent Mechanics, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 25 (2005)
28. Patricia E. Campbell, Representative Patent Claims: Their Use in Appeals to the Board and in Infringement Litigation, 23 Santa Clara Comp. & High Tech. L.J. 55,68 (2006)
29. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 955 (2007).
30. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 245 & tbl.18 (1998).
31. William C. Rooklidge & Matthew F. Weil, Judicial Hyperactivity: The Federal Circuit’s Discomfort with Its Appellate Role, 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 725 (2000).
32. Jeffrey A. Lefstin, The Constitution of Patent Law: The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Shape of the Federal Circuit’s Jurisprudence, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 843 (2010).
33. David L. Schwartz, Pre-Markman Reversal Rates, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1073 (2010)
34. David L. Schwartz, Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 Mich. L. Rev. 223 (2008)
35. Kimberly A. Moore, Markman Eight Years Later: Is Claim Construction More Predictable?, 9 Lewis&Clark L. Rev. 231 (2005).
36. James Bessen & Michael Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Lawyers, and Bureaucrats Put Innovation at Risk (2008).