Intellectual Property Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools

2010 Section Officers

Chair:

Katherine Strandburg
New York University

Chair-Elect:

Mark McKenna

University of Notre Dame

Executive Board:

Stacey Dogan

(Immediate Past Chair)

Boston University School of Law

Greg Mandel

Temple University

Jeanne Fromer

Fordham University

IP Conference Schedule

Section ByLaws

Links

Association of American Law Schools

American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property

American Intellectual Property Law Association

Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

International Association for the Advancement of Teaching & Research in Intellectual Property

International Trademark Association

National  Association of Patent Practitioners

National Patent Law Association

U.S. Copyright Office

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

World Intellectual Property Organization

Webmaster

Michael Madison
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
madison[at]pitt[dot]edu

Last revised: July 2010

 

 The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools was organized to facilitate the study of intellectual property in American law schools and to provide a forum for law faculty members engaged in the teaching of intellectual property and related subjects to exchange ideas.

Scholarship

The entries below are obtained via the electronic version of the Current Index to Legal Periodicals; beginning with February 2007, the dates indicated correspond to the publication date of the CILP.

July 2010

  • Barrett, Margreth. Reconciling fair use and trademark use. 28 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 1-63 (2010).
  • Bu, Qingxiu. Coca-Cola v. Huiyuan—market-economy driven or protectionism? 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 201-210 (2010).
  • Cotropia, Christopher A. and James Gibson. The upside of intellectual property’s downside. 57 UCLA L. Rev. 921-982 (2010).
  • Eiland, Murray Lee. The role of the individual inventor in pharmaceutical patents. 18 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1-37 (2009).
  • Ershov, Kirill. A macabre fixation: is plastination copyrightable? 32 U. Haw. L. Rev. 125-151 (2009).
  • Harhoff, Dietmar. Patent system design—an economic perspective. 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 121-122 (2010).
  • Hick, Darren Hudson. Conceptual problems of conceptual separability and the non-usefulness of the useful articles distinction. 57 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 37-57 (2009-2010).
  • Keele, Benjamin J. Copyright provisions in law journal publication agreements. 102 Law Lib. J. 269-283 (2010).
  • Ku, Raymond Shih Ray. F(r)ee expression? Reconciling copyright and the First Amendment. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 863-893 (2007).
  • Kupzok, Agniezka, Monique Sturny-Luder and Gintarė Surblytė. Foundations and Limitations of an Economic Approach to Competition Law—conference of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, March 2009. 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 210-226 (2010).
  • Landers, Amy L. Ordinary creativity in patent law: the artist within the scientist. 75 Mo. L. Rev. 1-77 (2010).
  • Liang, Zhiwen. Between freedom of commerce and protection of moral rights: the Chinese experience and a comparative analysis. 57 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 107-159 (2009-2010).
  • Lipton, Jacqueline D. “We, the paparazzi”: developing a privacy paradigm for digital video. 95 Iowa L. Rev. 919-984 (2010).
  • Make It Available at Your Own Risk. Jay Dougherty, moderator; Russell Frackman and Matthew Neco, panelists. 30 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 1-37 (2009).
  • Makeen, Makeen F. The controversy of simultaneous cable retransmission to hotel rooms under international and European copyright laws. 57 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 59-105 (2009-2010).
  • Pessach, Guy. The New Israeli Copyright Act—a case study in reverse comparative law. 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 187-201 (2010).
  • Sen, Rajarshi and Adarsh Ramanujan. Pruning the evergreen tree or tripping over TRIPS?—Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 170-186 (2010).
  • Tilmann, Winifried. Validity of selective product claims—Venice Conferences III and V, Lundbeck and Olanzapin. 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 149-169 (2010).
  • Wadlow, Christopher. Strasbourg, the forgotten patent convention, and the origins of the European patents jurisdiction. 41 IIC: Int’l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 123-149 (2010).
  • Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 657-850 (2010).
    • Madison, Michael J., Brett M. Frischmann and Katherine J. Strandburg. Constructing commons in the cultural environment. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 657-709 (2010).
    • Responses
    • Eggertsson, Thráinn. Mapping social technologies in the cultural commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 711-732 (2010).
    • Gordon, Wendy J. Discipline and nourish: on constructing commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 733-755 (2010).
    • Macey, Gregg P. Cooperative institutions in cultural commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 757-792 (2010).
    • Merges, Robert P. Individual creators in the cultural commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 793-805 (2010).
    • Ostrom, Elinor. The institutional analysis and development framework and the commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 807-815 (2010).
    • Solum, Lawrence B. Questioning cultural commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 817-837 (2010).
    • Reply
    • Madison, Michael J., Brett M. Frischmann and Katherine J. Strandburg. Reply: the complexity of commons. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 839-850 (2010).
  • style="color:#800000"Law, Technology and the Arts Symposium: The WIPO Copyright Treaties: 10 years later. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 729-861 (2007).
    • Lipton, Jacqueline. Introduction. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 729-730 (2007).
    • Vaver, David. Copyright and the Internet: from owner rights and user duties to user rights and owner duties? 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 731-750 (2007).
    • Dinwoodie, Graeme. The WIPO Copyright Treaty: a transition to the future if international copyright lawmaking? 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 751-766 (2007).
    • Rajan, Mira T. Sundara. Center stage: performers and their moral rights in the WPPT. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 767-778 (2007).
    • Hinze, Gwen. Brave new world, ten years later: reviewing the impact of policy choices in the implementation of the WIPO Internet treaties’ technological protection measure provisions. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 779-821 (2007).
    • Liu, Joseph. Comment on Gwen Hinze. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 823-828 (2007).
    • Davison, Mark. Database protection: lessons from Europe, Congress, and WIPO. 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 829-854 (2007).

June 2010

  • Adams, Charles W. Allocating patent rights between earlier and later inventions. 54 St. Louis U. L.J. 55-112 (2009).
  • Crawford, Bridget J. and Mitchell M. Gans. Sticky copyrights: discriminatory tax restraints on the transfer of intellectual property. 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 25-75 (2010).
  • Dickey, Bret, Jonathan Orszag and Laura Tyson. An economic assessment of patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry. 19 Annals Health L. 367-400 (2010).
  • Dunner, Donald R., et al. 2009 patent law. Decisions of the Federal Circuit. 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 809-989 (2010).
  • Gan, Rebeccah. 2009 trademark law. Decisions of the Federal Circuit. 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 1115-1153 (2010).
  • Mossoff, Adam. A simple conveyance rule for complex innovation. 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 707-737 (2009).
  • Nguyen, Xuan-Thao. Dynamic federalism and patent law reform. 85 Ind. L.J. 449-489 (2010).

  • Richey, Susan M. The second kind of sin: making the case for a duty to disclose facts related to genericism and functionality in the Trademark Office. 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 137-208 (2010).

  • Shaver, Lea and Caterina Sganga. The right to take part in cultural life: on copyright and human rights. 27 Wis. Int’l L.J. 637-662 (2010).

May 2010

  • Baker, Steven N. and Matthew Lee Fesak. Who cares about the counterfeiters? How the fight against counterfeiting has become an in rem process. 83 St. John’s L. Rev. 735-794 (2009).
  • Bridy, Annemarie. Why pirates (still) won’t behave: regulating P2P in the decade after Napster. 40 Rutgers L.J. 565-611 (2009).
  • Carroll, Michael W. One size does not fit all: a framework for tailoring intellectual property rights. 70 Ohio St. L.J. 1361-1434 (2009).
  • Crouch, Dennis D. Is novelty obsolete? Chronicling the irrelevance of the invention date in U.S. patent law. 16 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 53-107 (2009).
  • Cotter, Thomas F. A Burkean perspective on patent eligibility, part II: reflections on the (counter)revolution in patent law. 11 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 365-381 (2010).
  • Gómez-Arostegui, H. Tomás. Prospective compensation in lieu of a final injunction in patent and copyright cases. 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1661-1731 (2010).
  • Holbrook, Timothy R. Equivalency and patent law’s possession paradox. 23 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1-48 (2009).
  • Johnson, Eric E. Intellectual property’s need for a disability perspective. 20 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 181-208 (2010)
  • Larson, Edward J. Murder will out: rethinking the right of publicity through one classic case. 62 Rutgers L. Rev. 131-162 (2009).
  • Love, Brian J. The misuse of reasonable royalty damages as a patent infringement deterrent. 74 Mo. L. Rev. 909-948 (2009).
  • Marden, Emily. Open source drug development: a path to more accessible drugs and diagnostics? 11 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 217-266 (2010).
  • Nard, Craig Allen. Legal forms and the common law of patents. 90 B.U. L. Rev. 51-108 (2010).
  • Outterson, Kevin. The legal ecology of resistance: the role of antibiotic resistance in pharmaceutical innovation. 31 Cardozo L. Rev. 613-678 (2010).
  • Ram, Natalie. Assigning rights and protecting interests: constructing ethical and efficient legal rights in human tissue research. 23 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 119-177 (2009).
  • Roh, David. Two copyright cases from a literary perspective. 22 Law & Lit. 110-141 (2010).
  • Rosen, Zvi S. In search of the Trade-Mark Cases: the nascent treaty power and the turbulent origins of federal trademark law, 83 St. John’s L. Rev. 827-904 (2009).
  • Rothman, Jennifer E. Liberating copyright: thinking beyond free speech. 95 Cornell L. Rev. 463-534 (2010).
  • Shipley, David E. A dangerous undertaking indeed: juvenile humor, raunchy jokes, obscene materials and bad taste in copyright. 98 Ky. L.J. 517-572 (2009-2010).
  • Torrance, Andrew W. Gene concepts, gene talk, and gene patents. 11 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 157-191 (2010).
  • Young, Julie Cromer. From the mouths of babes: protecting child authors from themselves. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 431-467 (2010).
  • Zain, Saami. Quanta leap or much ado about nothing? An analysis on the effect of Quanta vs. LG Electronics. 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 67-121 (2010).

April 2010

  • Arewa, Olufunmilayo B. Blues lives: promise and perils of musical copyright. 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 573-619 (2010).
  • Baker, Scott. Can the courts rescue us from the patent crisis? (Reviewing Dan L. Burk and Mark A. Lemley, The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It.) 88 Tex. L. Rev. 593-610 (2010).
  • Baldrica, John. Cover songs and Donkey Kong: the rationale behind compulsory licensing of musical compositions can inform a fairer treatment of user-modified videogames. 11 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 103-143 (2009).
  • Beebe, Barton. Intellectual property law and the sumptuary code. 123 Harv. L. Rev. 809-889 (2010).
  • Bezanson, Randall and Andrew Finkelman. Trespassory art. 43 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 245-322 (2010).
  • Birnhack, Michael D. Who owns Bratz? The integration of copyright and employment law. 20 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 95-163 (2009).
  • Carson, David O. Horace S. Manges Lecture. Making the making available right available. 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 135-163 (2010).
  • Cotter, Thomas F. and Irina Y. Dmitrieva. Integrating the right of publicity with First Amendment and copyright preemption analysis. 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 165-225 (2010).
  • Devlin, Alan. Indeterminism and the property-patent equation. 28 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 61-106 (2009).
  • Dinwoodie, Graeme B., Rochelle C. Dreyfuss and Annette Kur. The law applicable to secondary liability in intellectual property cases. 42 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 201-235 (2009).
  • Dogan, Stacey L. Beyond trademark use. 8 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 135-155 (2010).
  • Epstein, Richard A. The disintegration of intellectual property? A classical liberal response to a premature obituary. 62 Stan. L. Rev. 455-521 (2010).
  • Fagundes, David. Property rhetoric and the public domain. 94 Minn. L. Rev. 652-705 (2010).
  • Fortney, Katie. Ending copyright claims in state primary legal materials: toward an open source legal system. 102 Law Lib. J. 59-68 (2010).
  • Gerhardt, Deborah R. Consumer investment in trademarks. 88 N.C. L. Rev. 427-500 (2010).
  • Golden, John M. Principles for patent remedies. 88 Tex. L. Rev. 505-592 (2010).
  • Hillman, Robert A. and Maureen A. O’Rourke. Rethinking consideration in the electronic age. 61 Hastings L.J. 311-335 (2009).
  • Hughes, Justin. Locke’s 1694 memorandum (and more incomplete copyright historiographies). 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 555-572 (2010).
  • Kapczynski, Amy. Harmonization and its discontents: a case study of TRIPS implementation in India’s pharmaceutical sector. 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1571-1649 (2009).
  • Kodak, James A. Drug patent purchasing: a potent means of lowering drug prices while encouraging innovation. 13 Quinnipiac Health L.J. 39-50 (2009).
  • Lee, Peter. Toward a distributive commons in patent law. 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 917-1016.
  • Lemley, Mark A. and Mark McKenna. Irrelevant confusion. 62 Stan. L. Rev. 413-454 (2010).
  • Levy, Ed, et al. Patent pools and genomics: navagiting a course to open science? 16 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 75-101 (2010).
  • Liu, Jiarui. The tough reality of copyright piracy: a case study of the music industry in China. 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 621-661 (2010).
  • McCabe, Justin. Enforcing intellectual property rights: a methodology for understanding the enforcement problem in China. 8 Pierce L. Rev. 1-29 (2009).
  • Menell, Peter S. and David Nimmer. Judicial resistance to copyright law’s inalienable right to terminate transfers. 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 227-239 (2010).
  • Nese, Bryan. Bilski on biotech: the potential for limiting negative impact of gene patents. 46 Cal. W. L. Rev. 137-175 (2009).
  • Ponte, Lucille M. Echoes of the sumptuary impulse: considering the threads of social identity, economic protectionism, and public morality in the proposed Design Piracy Prohibition Act. 12 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 45-92 (2009).
  • Sag, Matthew. Copyright and copy-reliant technology. 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1607-1682 (2009).

March 2010

  • Aufderheide, Patricia and Peter Jaszi. Recut, reframe, recycle: the shaping of fair use best practices for online video. 6 I/S: J.L. & Pol’y for Info. Soc’y 13-40 (2010).
  • Devlin, Alan and Neel Sukhatme. Self-realizing inventions and the utilitarian foundation of patent law. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 897-955 (2009).Dillbary, J. Shahar. Getting the word out: the informational function of trademarks. 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 991-1031 (2009).
  • Frankel, Susy. Challenging TRIPS-plus agreements: the potential utility of non-violation disputes. 12 J. Int’l Econ. L. 1023-1065 (2009).

  • Lee, Edward. Remixing Lessig. 6 I/S: J.L. & Pol’y for Info. Soc’y 41-66 (2010).

  • Lee, Thomas R., Eric D. DeRosia and Glenn L. Christensen. An empirical and consumer psychology analysis of trademark distinctiveness. 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 1033-1109 (2009).
  • Newman, Christopher M. Patent infringement as nuisance. 59 Cath. U. L. Rev. 61-123 (2009).
  • Samuelson, Pamela and Krzysztof Bebenek. Why plaintiffs should have to prove irreparable harm in copyright preliminary injunction cases. 6 I/S: J.L. & Pol’y for Info. Soc’y 67-94 (2010).
  • Tushnet, Rebecca. Hybrid vigor: mashups, cyborgs, and other necessary monsters. 6 I/S: J.L. & Pol’y for Info. Soc’y 1-12 (2010).
  • Publicity, Privacy, and Intellectual Property Meet the First Amendment. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1307-1524 (2009).
    • Papandrea, Mary-Rose. Foreword. Where intellectual property and free speech collide. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1307-1314 (2009).
    • Gelman, Lauren. Privacy, free speech, and “blurry-edged” social networks. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1315-1344 (2009).
    • Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal. A perspective on human dignity, the First Amendment, and the right of publicity. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1345-1371 (2009).
    • Lidsky, Lyrissa Barnett. Anonymity in cyberspace: what can we learn from John Doe? 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1373-1391 (2009).
    • Olson, David S. First Amendment interests and copyright accommodations. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1393-1423 (2009).
    • Rowe, Elizabeth A. Trade secret litigation and free speech: is it time to restrain the plaintiffs? 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1425-1455 (2009).
    • Tushnet, Rebecca. Fighting freestyle: the First Amendment, fairness, and corporate reputation. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1457-1479 (2009).
    • Yen, Alfred C. A First Amendment perspective on the construction of third-party copyright liability. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1481-1501 (2009).
    • Zimmerman, Diane Leenheer. Money as a thumb on the constitutional scale: weighing speech against publicity rights. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1503-1524 (2009).
  • Intellectual Property in International Perspective: Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Symposium. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 975-1300 (2009).
    • Vetter, Greg R. Introduction. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 975-977 (2009).
    • Yu, Peter K. The objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 979-1046 (2009).
    • Ho, Cynthia M. Unveiling competing patent perspectives. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1047-1114 (2009).
    • Reichman, Jerome H. Intellectual property in the twenty-first century: will the developing countries lead or follow? 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1115-1185 (2009).
    • Dinwoodie, Graeme B. and Rochelle C. Dreyfuss. Designing a global intellectual property system responsive to change: the WTO, WIPO, and beyond. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1187-1234 (2009).
    • McManis, Charles R. The proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): two tales of a treaty. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1235-1256 (2009).
    • Hennessey, William O. Sixth Annual Baker Botts Lecture. Protection of intellectual property in China (30 years and more): a personal reflection. 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1257-1300 (2009).

February 2010

  • Barnett, Jonathan M. Property as process: how innovation markets select innovation regimes. 119 Yale L.J. 384-456 (2009).
  • Caulfield, Timothy. Human gene patents: proof of problems? 84 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 133-145 (2009).
  • Chiang, Tun-Jen. Fixing patent boundaries. 108 Mich. L. Rev. 523-575 (2010).
  • Conley, John M. Gene patents and the product of nature doctrine. 84 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 109-132 (2009).
  • Crane, Daniel A. Intellectual liability. 88 Tex. L. Rev. 253-300 (2009).
  • Devlin, Alan. Standard-setting and the failure of price competition. 65 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 217-267 (2009).
  • Hilgartner, Stephen. Intellectual property and the politics of emerging technology: inventors, citizens, and powers to shape the future. 84 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 197-224 (2009).
  • Karlan, Pamela S. Constitutional law as trademark. 43 UC Davis L. Rev. 385-410 (2009).
  • Lauriat, Barbara. Charles Reade’s roles in the drama of Victorian dramatic copyright. 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 1-35 (2009).
  • McKenna, Mark P. Testing modern trademark law’s theory of harm. 95 Iowa L. Rev. 63-117 (2009).
  • Nusbaum, Hon. Suzanne, Jonathan T. Rubens and Phong D. Nguyen. Survey of the law of cyberspace: intellectual property cases 2008. 65 Bus. Law. 229-250 (2009).
  • Oliar, Dotan. The (constitutional) Convention on IP: a new reading. 57 UCLA L. Rev. 421-480 (2009).
  • Olson, David S. Taking the utilitarian basis for patent law seriously: the case for restricting patentable subject matter. 82 Temp. L. Rev. 181-240 (2009).
  • Rosloff, Genevieve P. “Some rights reserved”: finding the space between all rights reserved and the public domain. 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 37-80 (2009).
  • Shulman, Seth. Upstream without a paddle: gene patenting and the protection of the “infostructure.” 84 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 91-108 (2009).
  • Seymore, Sean B. Serendipity. 88 N.C. L. Rev. 185-211 (2009).
  • Strauss, Debra M. The application of TRIPS to GMOs: international intellectual property rights and biotechnology. 45 Stan. J. Int’l L. 287-320 (2009).
  • Siegel, Jonathan R. Law and longitude. 84 Tul. L. Rev. 1-66 (2009).Stolper, Sean and Joseph C. Cane, Jr. Parody in an era of online programming. 11 Tex. Rev. Ent. & Sports L. 81-97 (2009).
  • Thomas, W. John. The devil and Mr. Johnson: a bluesman’s cultural legacy at an intellectual property crossroads. 11 Tex. Rev. Ent. & Sports L. 1-26 (2009).
  • Symposium: Digital Entrepreneurship: The Incentives and Legal Ricks. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 1-206 (2009).
  • Risch, Michael. Virtual rule of law. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 1-52 (2009).
  • Fairfield, Joshua A.T. The end of the (virtual) world. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 53-95 (2009).
  • Mtima, Lateef. Copyright social utility and social justice interdependence: a paradigm for intellectual property empowerment and digital entrepreneurship. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 97-151 (2009).
  • Groves, Roger M. Facebook 2 Blackberry and database trading systems: morphing social networking to business growth in a global recession. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 153-186 (2009).
  • Jackson, Janet Thompson. Capitalizing on digital entrepreneurship for low-income residents and communities. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 187-198 (2009).
  • Chandler, Mark. The patent system’s relationship to digital entrepreneurship. 112 W. Va. L. Rev. 199-206 (2009).
  • The Boundaries of Intellectual Property Symposium. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 327-896 (2009).
  • Hardy, Trotter. Introduction. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 327-343 (2009).
  • The Boundaries of Copyright and Trademark/Consumer Protection Law
  • Burk, Dan L. and Brett H. McDonnell. Trademarks and the boundaries of the firm. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 345-394 (2009).
  • Mazzone, Jason. Administering fair use. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 395-437 (2009).
  • Samuelson, Pamela and Tara Wheatland. Statutory damages in copyright law: a remedy in need of reform. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 439-511 (2009).
  • Tushnet, Rebecca. Economies of desire: fair use and marketplace assumptions. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 513-546 (2009).
  • Winn, Jane and Nicolas Jondet. A new deal for end users? Lessons from a French innovation in the regulation of interoperability. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 547-576 (2009).
  • The Boundaries of Patent Law
  • Bagley, Margo A. The new invention creation activity boundary in patent law. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 577-608 (2009).
  • Duffy, John F. Rules and standards on the forefront of patentability. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 609-653 (2009).
  • Lemley, Mark A. Distinguishing lost profits from reasonable royalties. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 655-674 (2009).
  • Meurer, Michael J. Patent examination priorities. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 675-709 (2009).
  • Crossing Boundaries
  • Dinwoodie, Graeme B. Developing a private international intellectual property law: the demise of territoriality? 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 711-800 (2009).
  • Frischmann, Brett. Spillovers theory and its conceptual boundaries. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 801-824 (2009).

January 2010

  • Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley and Joshua Walker. Extreme value or trolls on top? The characteristics of the most-litigated patents. 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1-37 (2009).
  • Atkinson, Scott E., Alan C. Marco and John L. Turner. The economics of a centralized judiciary: uniformity, forum shopping, and the Federal Circuit. 52 J.L. & Econ. 411-443 (2009).
  • Bambauer, Derek E. Cybersieves. 59 Duke L.J. 377-446 (2009).
  • Bartholomew, Mark. Cops, robbers, and search engines: the questionable role of criminal law in contributory infringement doctrine. 2009 BYU L. Rev. 783-845.
  • Brauneis, Robert. The transformation of originality in the progressive-era debate over copyright in news. 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 321-373 (2009).
  • Cotropia, Christopher A. The folly of early filing in patent law. 61 Hastings L.J. 65-129 (2009).
  • de Beer, Jeremy and Christopher D. Clemmer. Global trends in online copyright enforcement: a non-neutral role for network intermediaries? 49 Jurimetrics J. 375-409 (2009).
  • Dillbary, J. Shahar. Trademarks as a media for false advertising. 31 Cardozo L. Rev. 327-365 (2009).
  • Garza Barbosa, Roberto. The philosophical approaches to intellectual property and legal transplants. The Mexican Supreme Court and NAFTA Article 1705. 31 Hous. J. Int'l L. 515-564 (2009).
  • Gasaway, Laura N. A defense of the public domain: a scholarly essay. 101 Law Lib. J. 451-470 (2009).
  • Hu, Robert H. Protecting intellectual property in China: a selective bibliography and resource for research. 101 Law Lib. J. 485-515 (2009).
  • Judge, Elizabeth F. and Daniel Gervais. Of silos and constellations: comparing notions of originality in copyright law. 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 375-408 (2009).
  • Ku, Raymond Shih Ray, Jiayang Sun and Yiying Fan. Does copyright law promote creativity? An empirical analysis of copyright’s bounty. 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1669-1746 (2009).
  • Lipton, Jacqueline D. To © or not to ©? Copyright and innovation in the digital typeface industry. 43 UC Davis L. Rev. 143-192 (2009).
  • Luppino, Anthony J. Fixing a hole: eliminating ownership uncertainties to facilitate university-generated innovation. 78 UMKC L. Rev. 367-427 (2009).
  • Magliocca, Gerard N. Patenting the curve ball: business methods and industry norms. 2009 BYU L. Rev. 875-903.
  • Miller, Joseph Scott. Hoisting originality. 31 Cardozo L. Rev. 451-495 (2009).
  • Rosenblatt, Elizabeth L. Rethinking the parameters of trademark use in entertainment. 61 Fla. L. Rev. 1011-1082 (2009).
  • Rowe, Elizabeth A. Contributory negligence, technology, and trade secrets. 17 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1-37 (2009).

December 2009

  • Aoki, Keith. Seeds of dispute: intellectual-property rights and agricultural biodiversity. 3 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 79-160 (2009).
  • Ashtar, Reuven. Theft, transformation, and the need of the immaterial: a proposal for a fair use digital sampling regime. 19 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 261-318 (2009).
  • Brown, Christopher A.  Recent developments in intellectual property law.  42 Ind. L. Rev. 1071-1092 (2009).
  • Jacobi, Tonja and Matthew Sag.  Taking the measure of ideology:  empirically measuring Supreme Court cases.  98 Geo. L.J. 1-75 (2009).
  • Kur, Annette.  Of oceans, islands, and inland water - how much room for exceptions and limitations under the three-step test?  8 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 287-350 (2009).
  • Mazeh, Yoav.  Modifying fixation:  why fixed works need to be archived to justify the fixation requirement.  8 Loy. L. & Tech. Ann. 109-140 (2008-2009).
  • Nikolic, Aleksandar. Securitization of patents and its continued viability in light of the current economic conditions. 19 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 393-420 (2009).
  • Parchomovsky, Gideon and Alex Stein.  Originality.  95 Va. L. Rev. 1505-1550 (2009)
  • Plotkin, Thomas and Tarae Howell.  “Fair is foul and foul is fair:”  have insurers loosened the chokepoint of copyright and permitted fair use’s breathing space in documentary films?  15 Conn. Ins. L.J. 407-494 (2008-2009).
  • Intellectual Property and Indigenous Peoples Symposium. 15 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 207-494 (2009).
    • Conway, Danielle M. Indigenizing intellectual property law: customary law, legal pluralism, and the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, identity, and resources. 15 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 207-256 (2009).
    • Cross, John T. Justifying property rights in Native American traditional knowledge. 15 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 257-293 (2009).
    • Erstling, Jay. Using patents to protect traditional knowledge. 15 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 295-333 (2009).
    • Green, Daniel Austin. Indigenous intellect: problems of calling knowledge property and assigning it rights. 15 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 335-356 (2009).

November 2009

  • Ackerman, John R.  Toward open source hardware,  34 U. Dayton L. Rev. 183-222 (2009).

  • Cahoy, Daniel R. and Leland Glenna.  Private ordering and public energy innovation policy.  36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 415-458 (2009).

  • Carrier, Michael A.  Unsettling drug patent settlements:  a framework for presumptive illegality.  108 Mich. L. Rev. 37-80 (2009).

  • Cotropia, Christopher A.  Modernizing patent law’s inequitable conduct doctrine.  24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 723-783 (2009).

  • Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper and Lawrence S. Pope.  Dethroning Lear?  Incentives to innovate after MedImmune.  24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 971-1007 (2009).

  • Frohlich, Anita B.  Copyright infringement in the Internet age--primetime for harmonized conflict-of-laws rules?  24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 851-896 (2009).

  • Geradin, Damien.  Pricing abuses by essential patent holders in a standard-setting context:  a view from Europe.  76 Antitrust L.J. 329-357 (2009).

  • Grynberg, Michael.  Things are worse than we think:  trademark defenses in a “formalist” age.  24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 897-970 (2009).

  • Irving, Tom, Lauren L. Stevens and Scott M.K. Lee.  Nonobviousness in the U.S. post-KSR for innovative drug companies.  34 U. Dayton L. Rev. 157-182 (2009).

  • Isaacs, Davida H. and Robert M. Farley.  Privilege-wise and patent (and trade secret) foolish?  How the courts’ misapplication of the Military and State Secrets Privilege violates the Constitution and endangers national security.  24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 785-818 (2009).

  • Khoury, Amir H.  “Measuring the immeasurable”--the effects of trademark regimes:  a case study of Arab countries.  26 J.L. & Com. 11-70 (2006-07).

  • Rey, René Joseph.  Regulatory challenges, antitrust hurdles, intellectual property incentives, and the collective development of aerospace vehicle-enabling technologies and standards:  creating an industry foundation.  35 J. Space L. 75-162 (2009).

  • Spoo, Robert.  Ezra Pound’s copyright statute:  perpetual rights and the problem of heirs.  56 UCLA L. Rev. 1775-1834 (2009).

  • Ware, Hon. James and Brian Davy.  The history, content, application and influence of the Northern District of California’s Patent Local Rules.  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 965-1032 (2009).

  • Symposium Review.  Shifting Strategies in Patent Law:  How the ITC, Non-Practicing Entities, and Inequitable Conduct are Changing the Patent Arena.  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 701-882 (2009).

  • de Blank, Bas and Bing Cheng.  Where is the ITC going after Kyocera?  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 701-721 (2009).

  • Bohrer, David, Matt Lynde and Elizabeth M.N. Morris.  The shifting sands of price erosion:  price erosion damages shift by tens of millions of dollars depending upon the admissibility of pre-notice eroded prices.  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 723-763 (2009).

  • Kieff, F. Scott, Robert G. Kramer and Robert M. Kunstadt.  It’s your turn, but it’s my move:  intellectual property protection for sports “moves.”  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 765-785 (2009).

  • Lim, Lily and Sarah E. Craven.  Injunctions enjoined; remedies restructured.  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 787-819 (2009).

  • Lyons, Michael J., Andrew J. Wu and Harry F. Doscher.  Exclusion of downstream products after Kyocera:  a revised framework for general exclusion orders.  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 821-838 (2009). 

  • Puknys, Erik R. and student Jared D. Schuettenhelm.  Application of the inequitable conduct doctrine after Kingsdown.  25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 839-882 (2009).

  • Open Source and Proprietary Models of Innovation:  Beyond Ideology.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 1-507 (2009).

  • McManis, Charles R.  Introduction.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 1-15 (2009).

  • Part I:  Business, Law, and Engineering Perspectives on Open Source Innovation

  • West, Joel.  Policy challenges of open, cumulative, and user innovation.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 17-41 (2009).

  • Piper, S. Tina.  The tools and levers of access to patented health related genetic invention in Canada.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 43-77 (2009).

  • Jakiela, Mark J.  Contribution attribution as the possible next step for “crowdsourced” engineering design and product development.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 79-92 (2009).

  • Part II:  Open Source Biotechnology

  • Torrance, Andrew W.  Open source human evolution.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 93-138 (2009).

  • Part III:  Open Source and Proprietary Software

  • Kelty, Christopher M.  Conceiving open systems.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 139-177 (2009).

  • Vetter, Greg R.  Slouching toward open innovation:  free and open source software for electronic health information.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 179-259 (2009).

  • Gomulkiewicz, Robert W.  Open source license proliferation:  helpful diversity or hopeless confusion?  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 261-291 (2009).

  • Part IV:  Collaborative Innovation, the Economics of Innovation, and Constructed Commons

  • Sawyer, Keith.  The collaboratibe nature of innovation.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 293-324 (2009).

  • Boldrin, Michele and Davis K. Levine.  Market structure and property rights in open source industries.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 325-363 (2009).

  • Madison, Michael J., Brett M. Frischmann and Katherine J. Strandburg.  The university as constructed cultural commons.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 365-403 (2009)

  • McManis, Charles R. and Eul Soo Seo.  The interface of open source and proprietary agricultural innovation:  facilitated access and benefit-sharing under the new FAO treaty.  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 405-464 (2009).

  • Lightbourne, Muriel.  The FAO Multilateral System for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture”  better than bilateralism?  30 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 465-507 (2009).

  • Symposium.  Perspectives on Patents and Patients:  Can They Coexist?  18 Annals Health L. 155-309 (2009).

  • Ho, Cynthia M. and student Ann Weilbaecher.  Patents versus patients:  must we choose?  18 Annals Health L. i-xv  (2009).

  • Love, James and Tim Hubbard.  Prizes for innovation of new medicines and vaccines.  18 Annals Health L. 155-186 (2009).

  • Herder, Matthew.  Patents & the progress of personalized medicine:  biomarkers research as lens.  18 Annals Health L. 187-229 (2009).

  • Tomasson, Michael, M.D.  Legal, ethical, and conceptual bottlenecks to the development of useful genomic tests.  18 Annals Health L. 231-260 (2009).

  • Martin, Alice O. and Sendil K. Devadas.  Patents with an “I” = patients.  18 Annals Health L. 261-280 (2009).

  • Weilbaecher, Ann.  Comment.  Diseases endemic in developing countries:  how to incentivize innovation.  18 Annals Health L. 281-309 (2009).

October 2009

  • Chen, Shun-ling.  To surpass or to conform--what are public licenses for?  2009 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y 107-139

  • Coblenz, Michael.  Not for entertainment only:  fair use and fiction as social commentary.  16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 265-321 (2009).

  • Devlin, Alan, Michael Jacobs and Bruno Peixoto.  Success, dominance, and interoperability.  84 Ind. L.J. 1157-1201 (2009)

  • Duffy, John F.  Are administrative patent judges unconstitutional?  77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 904-923 (2009).

  • Foster, Sharon E.  Invitation to a discourse regarding the history, philosophy and social psychology of a property right in copyright.  21 Fla. J. Int’l L. 171-208 (2009).

  • Keane, Megan.  Patent reexamination and the Seventh Amendment.  77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1101-1113 (2009).

  • Halpern, Sheldon W.  Trafficking in trademarks:  setting boundaries for the uneasy relationship between “property rights” and trademark and publicity rights.  58 DePaul L. Rev. 1013-1045 (2009).

  • Herlihy, Eileen M.  Appellate review of patent claim construction:  should the Federal Circuit be its own lexographer in matters related to the Seventh Amendment?  15 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 469-515 (2009).

  • Keyhani, Dariush.  Patent law in the global economy:  a modest proposal for U.S. patent law and infringement without borders.  54 Vill. L. Rev. 291-307 (2009).

  • Pulsinelli, Gary.  Harry Potter and the (re)order of the artists:  are we Muggles or goblins?  87 Or. L. Rev. 1101-1132 (2008)

  • Rogoyski, Robert S. and Kenneth Basin.  The bloody case that started from a parody:  American intellectual property and the pursuit of democratic ideals in modern China.  16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 237-264 (2009).

  • Sag, Matthew, Tonja Jacobi and Maxim Sytch.  Ideology and exceptionalism in intellectual property:  an empirical study.  97 Cal. L. Rev. 801-856 (2009).

  •  Schanz, Stephen J.  Entrepreneurial options for protecting intellectual property.  4 Entrepren. Bus. L.J. 61-77 (2009).

  •  Tricker, Brandy.  Taming the Wild West:  solving virtual world disputes using non-virtual law.  35 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 138-162 (2008).

  • Wanat, Daniel E.  Copyright law:  infringement of musical works and the appropriateness of summary judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c).  39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 1037-1091 (2009).

  • Symposium: Invention, Creation, & Public Policy Symposium.  34 J. Corp. L. 991-1289 (2009).

  • Drassinower, Abraham.  From distribution to dialogue:  remarks on the concept of balance in copyright law.  34 J. Corp. L. 991-1007 (2009).

  • Heymann, Laura A.  A tale of (at least) two authors:  focusing copyright law on process over product.  34 J. Corp. L. 1009-1032 (2009).

  • Reese, R. Anthony.  Photographs of public domain paintings:  how, if at all, should we protect them?  34 J. Corp. L. 1033-1058 (2009).

  • Stadler, Sara K.  Relevant markets for copyrighted works.  34 J. Corp. L. 1059-1082 (2009).

  • Collins, Kevin Emerson.  Enabling after-arising technology.  34 J. Corp. L. 1083-1126 (2009).

  • Cotropia, Christopher A.  Describing patents as real options.  34 J. Corp. L. 1127-1149 (2009).

  • Cotter, Thomas F.  Patent holdup, patent remedies, and antitrust responses.  34 J. Corp. L. 1151-1207 (2009).

  • Ghosh, Shubha.  Carte blanche, Quanta, and competition policy.  34 J. Corp. L. 1209-1242 (2009).

  • Hovenkamp, Herbert.  Patents, property, and competition policy.  34 J. Corp. L. 1243-1258 (2009).

  • Leslie, Christopher R.  Antitrust and patent law as component parts of innovation policy.  34 J. Corp. L. 1259-1289 (2009).

  • The Foundations of Intellectual Property Reform.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1541-2232 (2009).

  • Abramowicz, Michael and John F. Diffy.  Ending the patenting monopoly.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1541-1611 (2009).

  • Abrams, David S.  Did TRIPS spur innovation?  An analysis of patent duration and incentives to innovate.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1613-1647 (2009).

  • Bar-Gill, Oren and Gideon Parchomovsky.  Law and the boundaries of technology-intensive firms.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1649-1689 (2009).

  • Barnett, Jonathan M.  Is intellectual property trivial?  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1691-1742 (2009).

  • Burk, Dan L. and Mark A. Lemley.  Fence posts or sign posts?  Rethinking patent claim construction.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1743-1799 (2009).

  • Conley, John P. and Christopher S. Yoo.  Nonrivalry and price discrimination in copyright economics.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1801-1830 (2009).

  • Depoorter, Ben.  Technology and uncertainty:  the shaping effect on copyright law.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1831-1868 (2009).

  • Hetcher, Steven A.  Using social norms to regulate fan fiction and remix culture.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1869-1935 (2009).

  • Kieff, F. Scott.  The case for preferring patent-validity litigation over second-window review and gold-plated patents:  when one size doesn’t fit all, how could two do the trick?  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1937-1963 (2009).

  • Long, Clarisa.  The PTO and the market for influence in patent law.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1965-1999 (2009).

  • Mossoff, Adam.  The use and abuse of IP at the birth of the administrative state.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2001-2050 (2009).

  • Rai, Arti K.  Growing pains in the administrative state:  the Patent Office’s troubled quest for managerial control.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2051-2081 (2009).

  • Smith, Henry E.  Institutions and indirectness in intellectual property.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2083-2133 (2009).

  • Wagner, R. Polk.  Understanding patent-quality mechanisms.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2135-2173 (2009).

  • Simon, Ariel.  Reinventing discovery:  patent law’s characterizations of and interventions upon science.  157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2175-2232 (2009).

September 2009

  • Cormier, Joseph W., Richard Kozell and Jessica L. McCurdy.  Intellectual property crimes.  46 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 761-812 (2009).

  • Finney, George.  The evolution of GPLv3 and contributor agreements in open source software.  14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 79-105 (2009).

  • Gervais, Daniel.  Traditional knowledge:  are we closer to the answer(s)?  The potential role of geographical indications.  15 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 551-567 (2009).

  • Goldman, Eric.  Brand spillovers.  22 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 381-419 (2009).

  • Grimmelmann, James.  Saving Facebook.  94 Iowa L. Rev. 1137-1206 (2009).

  • Kumar, Sapna.  The other patent agency:  congressional regulation of the ITC.  61 Fla. L. Rev. 529-580 (2009).

  • Lee, Edward.  Decoding the DMCA safe harbors.  32 Colum. J.L. & Arts 233-269 (2009).

  • Norvell, Blake Covington.  The modern First Amendment and copyright law.  18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 547-588 (2009).

  • Leitner, John.  A legal and cultural comparison of file-sharing disputes in Japan and the Republic of Korea and implications for future cyber-regulation.  22 Colum. J. Asian L. 1-55 (2008).

  • Manta, Irina D.  Privatizing trademarks.  51 Ariz. L. Rev. 381-425 (2009).

  • Maybarduk, Peter and Sarah Rimmington.  Compulsory licenses:  a tool to improve global access to the HPV vaccine?  35 Am. J.L. & Med. 323-350 (2009).

  • Moffat, Viva R.  Regulating search.  22 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 475-513 (2009).

  • Mossoff, Adam.  Exclusion and exclusive use in patent law.  22 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 321-379 (2009).

  • Norvell, Blake Covington.  The modern First Amendment and copyright law.  18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 547-588 (2009).

  • Packer, Samuel.  Embryonic stem cells, intellectual property, and patents:  ethical concerns.  37 Hofstra L. Rev. 487-515 (2008).

  • Petherbridge, Lee.  Patent law uniformity?  22 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 421-473 (2009).

  • Plantinga, Michael E.  An amended doctrine that will silence the NFL:  the demise of the existing fair use doctrine as it relates to uses of digital sports entertainment media.  14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 51-78 (2009).

  • Roose-Snyder, Beirne and Megan K. Doyle.  The global health licensing program:  a new model for humanitarian licensing at the university level.  35 Am. J.L. & Med. 281-309 (2009).

  • Scherer, F.M.  The political economy of patent policy reform in the United States.  7 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 167-216 (2009).

  • Schwabach, Aaron.  The Harry Potter Lexicon and the world of fandom:  fan fiction, outsider works, and copyright.  70 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 387-434 (2009).

  • Sprigman, Christopher.  Copyright and the rule of reason.  7 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 317-342 (2009).

  • Torrance, Andrew W. and Bill Tomlinson.  Patent expertise and the regress of useful arts.  33 S. Ill. U. L.J. 239-277 (2009).

  • Yu, Peter K.  A tale of two development agendas.  35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 465-573 (2009).

  • Symposium

  • Virtual Worlds, Social Networks, and User-Generated Content.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 779-1168 (2009).

  • Blitz, Marc Jonathan.  A First Amendment for Second Life:  what virtual worlds mean for the law of video games.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 779-821 (2009).

  • Fairfield, Joshua A.T.  The magic circle.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 823-840 (2009).

  • Gervais, Daniel.  The tangled web of UGC:  making copyright sense of user-generated content.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 841-870 (2009).

  •  Ghosh, Shubha.  Patenting games:  Baker v. Selden revisited.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 871-898 (2009).

  •  Gibbons, Llewellyn Joseph.  Law and the emotive avatar.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 899-920 (2009).

  •  Halbert, Debora.  Mass culture and the culture of the masses:  a manifesto for user-generated rights.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 921-961 (2009).

  •  Hetcher, Steven A.  Hume’s penguin or, Yochai Benkler and the nature of peer production.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 963-1000 (2009).

  •  Levin, Avner and Patricia Sánchez Abril.  Two notions of privacy online.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 1001-1051 (2009).

  •  LIM, Hannah Yee Fen.  Who monitors the monitor?  Virtual world governance and the failure of contract law remedies in virtual worlds.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 1053-1073 (2009).

  • Wong, Mary W. S.  “Transformative” user-generated content in copyright law:  infringing derivative works or fair use?  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 1075-1139 (2009).

  •  Woods, Tanya M.  Working toward spontaneous copyright licensing:  a simple solution for a complex problem.  11 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 1141-1168 (2009).

August 2009

  • Book. [L. Ray Patterson & Hon. Stanley F. Birch, Jr., A Unified Theory of Copyright.]  Tributes by Craig Joyce and  Hon. Stanley F. Birch, Jr.; Editor’s note by Craig Joyce; bibliography by Craig Joyce and Christopher M. Thomas.  46 Hous. L. Rev. 215-399 (2009).

  • Gomulkiewicz, Robert W.  The Federal Circuit’s licensing law jurisprudence:  its nature and influence.  84 Wash. L. Rev. 199-258 (2009).

  • Greenspoon, Robert P.  Is the United States finally ready for a patent small claims court?  10 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 549-566 (2009).

  • Heymann, Laura A.  The public’s domain in trademark law:  a First Amendment theory of the consumer.  43 Ga. L. Rev. 651-715 (2009).

  • Mtima, Lateef.  Whom the gods would destroy:  why Congress prioritized copyright protection over Internet privacy in passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  61 Rutgers L. Rev. 627-704 (2009).

  • Osenga, Kristen.  Information may want to be free, but information products do not:  protecting and facilitating transactions in information products.  30 Cardozo L. Rev. 2099-2145 (2009).

  • Perzanowski, Aaron K.  Rethinking anticircumvention’s interoperability policy.  42 UC Davis L. Rev. 1549-1620 (2009).

  • Samuelson, Pamela.  Are patents on interfaces impeding interoperability?  93 Minn. L. Rev. 1943-2019 (2009).

  • Symposium:

  • Frontiers in Empirical Patent Law Scholarship.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1321-1698 (2009).

  •  Chin, Andrew.  Introduction.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1321-1322 (2009).

  • Plager, Hon. S. Jay.  Keynote address.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1323-1339 (2009).

  • Kesan, Jay P. and Andres A. Gallo.  The political economy of the patent system.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1341-1419 (2009).

  • Cotropia, Christopher A. and Mark A. Lemley.  Copying in patent law.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1421-1466 (2009).

  • Lunney, Glynn S., Jr.  Patents and growth:  empirical evidence from the states.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1467-1517 (2009).

  • Rai, Arti K., John R. Allison and Bhaven N. Sampat.  University software ownership and litigation:  a first examination.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1519-1570 (2009).

  • Chien, Colleen V.  Of trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and kings:  narratives and evidence in the litigation of high-tech patents.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1571-1616 (2009).

  • Chin, Andrew.  Search for tomorrow:  some side effects of Patent Office automation.  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1617-1656 (2009).

  • Strandburg, Katherine J., Gábor Csárdi, Jan Tobochnik, Péter Érdi and Lázló Zalányi.  Patent citation networks revisited:  signs of a twenty-first century change?  87 N.C. L. Rev. 1657-1698 (2009).

 Blogs featuring IP Section Members

Info/Law

43(b)log

Technology and Marketing Law Blog

scrawford.net

discourse.net

madisonian.net

Carrollogos

Legal Theory Blog

Antitrust and Competition Policy Blog

Holman's Biotech IP Blog

Patently-O

Email lists of interest to IP Section Members

IPProfs (contact Tom Field, Franklin Pierce Law Center)

Cyberprof (contact Mark Lemley, Stanford University)

IPandBiotech (contact Robin Feldman, UC Hastings)