Intellectual Property Law Section Association of American Law Schools

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.

February 2010

Barnett, Jonathan M. Property as process: how innovation markets select innovation regimes. 119 Yale L.J. 384-456 (2009).
Chiang, Tun-Jen. Fixing patent boundaries. 108 Mich. L. Rev. 523-575 (2010).
Crane, Daniel A. Intellectual liability. 88 Tex. L. Rev. 253-300 (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).
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).
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).
Heymann, Laura A. How to write a life: some thoughts on fixation and the copyright/privacy divide. 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825-872 (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).

July 2009

Alnajafi, Nada. Protecting the past in the future: how copyright is wrong for Egypt and why other sui generis laws may help protect the Pyramids and other cultural antiquities. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 243-263 (2009).
Azar, Deborah. A method to protect computer programs: the integration of copyright, trade secrets, and anticircumvention measures. 2008 Utah L. Rev. 1395-1431.
Balganesh, Shyamkrishna. Debunking Blackstonian copyright. (Reviewing Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox.) 118 Yale L.J. 1126-1181 (2009).
Besen, Stanley M. and Robert J. Levinson. Standards, intellectual property disclosure, and patent royalties after Rambus. 10 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 233-282 (2009).
Berg, Stephanie. Remedying the statutory damages remedy for secondary copyright infringement liability: balancing copyright and innovation in the digital age. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 265-334 (2009).
Bilsky, Daniel. From parts unknown: WWE v. Jim Hellwig in the ultimate battle for character copyright. 19 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 419-436 (2009).
Brauneis, Robert. Copyright and the world’s most popular song. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 335-426 (2009).
Cronin, Charles. Genius in a bottle: perfume, copyright, and human perception. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 427-483 (2009).
Fairfield, Joshua A.T. The God paradox. 89 B.U. L. Rev. 1017-1068 (2009).
Henslee, William. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you can steal it and call it fair use: a proposal to abolish the fair use defense for music. 58 Cath. U. L. Rev. 663-701 (2009)
Hick, Darren Hudson. Mystery and misdirection: some problems of fair use and users’ rights. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 485-504 (2009).
Lee, Edward. Guns and speech technologies: how the right to bear arms affects copyright regulations of speech technologies. 17 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1037-1088 (2009).
Liang, Zhiwen. Beyond the Copyright Act: the fair use doctrine under Chinese judicial opinions. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 695-717 (2009).
Livingston, Margit. Inspiration or imitation: copyright protection for stage directions. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 427-487 (2009).
Long, Doris Estelle. Crossing the innovation divide. 81 Temp. L. Rev. 507-543 (2008).
McKenna, Mark P. Trademark use and the problem of source. 2009 U. Ill. L. Rev. 773-828.
McNamara, Joseph E. Modifying the Design Piracy Prohibition Act to offer “opt-out” protection for fashion designs. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 505-541 (2009).
Merges, Robert P. Fifth Annual Baker Botts Lecture. The concept of property in the digital era. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1239-1275 (2008).
Monlux, Nicholas R. An invitation for infringement: how the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic and intrinsic similarity tests encourage infringement: an analysis using Reece v. Island Treasures Art Gallery. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 543-569 (2009).
Naser, M.A. and W.H. Muhaisen. Intellectual property: an Islamic perspective. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 571-587 (2009).
Patent Law in Perspective: Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Symposium. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1031-1237 (2008).
Vetter, Greg R. Introduction. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1031-1035 (2008).
Rai, Arti K. Building a better innovation system: combining facially neutral patent standards with therapeutics regulation. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1037-1057 (2008).
Eisenberg, Rebecca S. Noncompliance, nonenforcement, nonproblem? Rethinking the anticommons in biomedical research. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1059-1099 (2008).
Mueller, Janice M. and Donald S. Chisum. Enabling patent law’s inherent anticipation doctrine. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1101-1164 (2008).
Heald, Paul J. Optimal remedies for patent infringement: a transactional model. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1165-1200 (2008)
Meurer, Michael J. Inventors, entrepreneurs, and intellectual property law. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1201-1237 (2008).
Peguera, Miquel. When the cached link is the weakest link: search engine caches under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 589-645 (2009)
Richter, Laurie. Reproductive freedom: striking a fair balance between copyright and other intellectual property protections in cartoon characters. 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 441-477 (2009).
Samuelson, Pamela. Unbundling fair uses. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2537-2621 (2009).
Sergent, Randolph S. and Alex J. Brown. Recent developments in coverage for intellectual property claims. 44 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 621-652 (2009).
Symposiun: Information Convergence: At the Boundaries of Access. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 585-688 (2009).
Long, Doris Estelle and Leslie Ann Reis. Introduction. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 585-597 (2009).
Castagnoli, Charisse. Convergence at the boundaries of information analysis and security technology. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 599-608 (2009)
Chval, Keith G. Litigating at the boundaries. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 609-618 (2009).
Cross, John T. Dead ends and dirty secrets: legal treatment of negative information. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 619-624 (2009).
Farley, Christine Haight. Convergence and incongruence: trademark law and ICANN’s introduction of new generic top-level domains. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 625-633 (2009).
Halpern, Sheldon. The Supreme Court’s trademark jurisprudence: categorical divergence in the interest of informational convergence. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 635-639 (2009)
Long, Doris Estelle. When worlds collide: the uneasy convergence of creativity and innovation. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 653-671 (2009).
Madison, Michael J. Information governance. 25 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 673-679 (2009).
Symposium: When Worlds Collide: Intellectual Property at the Interface Between Systems of Knowledge Creation. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2003-2435 (2009).
Strandburg, Katherine J., Brett M. Frischmann and Jay P. Kesan. Introduction. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2003-2004 (2009.
Panel I: Open Approaches to Innovation
Grimmelmann, James. The ethical visions of copyright law. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2005-2037 (2009).
Madison, Michael J. Notes on a geography of knowledge. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2039-2085 (2009).
Vetter, Greg R. Commercial free and open source software: knowledge production, hybrid appropriability, and patents. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2087-2141 (2009).
Panel II: University Research and Commercial Science
Frischmann, Brett M. The pull of patents. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2143-2167 (2009).
Kesan, Jay P. Transferring innovation. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2169-2223 (2009).
Lee, Peter. Interface: the push and pull of patents. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2225-2236 (2009).
Strandburg, Katherine J. User innovator community norms: at the boundary between academic and industry research. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2237-2274 (2009).
Panel III: Knowledge Creation Systems in the International Stage
Aoki, Keith. “Free seeds, not free beer”: participatory plant breeding, open source seeds, and acknowledging user innovation in agriculture. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2275-2310 (2009).
Chon, Margaret. Marks of rectitude. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2311-2351 (2009).
Gervais, Daniel. Of clusters and assumptions: innovation as part of a full TRIPS implementation. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2353-2377 (2009).
Okediji, Ruth L. The regulation of creativity under the WIPO Internet Treaties. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2379-2410 (2009).
Keynote Address
Gordon, Wendy J. Harmless use: gleaning from the fields of copyrighted works. 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2411-2435 (2009).
Walker, Adam. Thumbnails, search engines, and copyrights: a whole mess of confusion. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 647-667 (2009).
Wan, Yong. Legal protection of performers’ rights in the Chinese Copyright Law. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 669-694 (2009).
Willis, Robert R. International patent law: should the United States and foreign patent laws be uniform? An analysis of the benefits, problems, and barriers. 10 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 283-311 (2009).
Yu, Peter K. Cultural relics, intellectual property, and intangible heritage. 81 Temp. L. Rev. 433-506 (2008).

June 2009

Bitton, Miriam. Exploring European Union copyright policy through the lens of the database directive. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1411-1470 (2008).
Blair-Stanek, Andrew. Increased market power as a new secondary consideration in patent law. 58 Am. U. L. Rev. 707-746 (2009).
Bradford, Laura R. Emotion, dilution, and the trademark consumer. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1227-1298 (2008).
Creighton, Susan A. and Scott A. Sher. Resolving patent disputes through merger: a comparison of three potential approaches. 75 Antitrust L.J. 657-690 (2009).
Eiland, Murry Lee. The institutional role in arbitrating patent disputes. 9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 283-323 (2009).
Field, Ted L. Improving the Federal Circuit’s approach to choice of law for procedural matters in patent cases. 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 643-699 (2009).
Frazer, Brad. Open source is not public domain: evolving licensing philosophies. 45 Idaho L. Rev. 349-375 (2009).
Ginsburg, Jane C. The author’s place in the future of copyright. 45 Willamette L. Rev. 381-394 (2009).
The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion. Article by C. Scott Hemphill and Jeannie Suk; response by Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman; reply by C. Scott Hemphill and Jeannie Suk. 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1147-1232 (2009).
Jaynes, Andrew. Why intellectual property rights infringement remains entrenched in the Philippines. 21 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 55-135 (2009).
Katz, Ariel. Substitution and Schumpeterian effects over the life cycle of copyrighted works. 49 Jurimetrics J. 113-153 (2009).
Kelly, David M. and Stephanie H. Bald. 2008 trademark decisions of the Federal Circuit. 58 Am. U. L. Rev. 947-973 (2009).
King, Sandra Leigh. While you were sleeping. 11 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 291-335 (2008).
Kwoka, Margaret B. Vindicating the rights of people living with AIDS under the Alien Tort Claims Act. 40 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 643-689 (2009).
Lee, Peter. Contracting to preserve open science: consideration-based regulation in patent law. 58 Emory L.J. 889-975 (2009).
Lefstin, Jeffrey A. A formal structure of patent law and the limits of enablement. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1141-1225 (2008).
Lund, Jamie. Copyright genericide. 42 Creighton L. Rev. 131-156 (2009).
Malkan, Jeffrey. Rule-based expression in copyright law. 57 Buff. L. Rev. 433-509 (2009).
Mota, Sue Ann. The doctrine of patent Pierce, N. Scott. Common sense: treating statutory nonobviousness as a novelty issue. 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 539-646 (2009).
Munzer, Stephen R. and Phyllis Chen Simon. Territory, plants, and land-use rights among the San of Southern Africa: a case study in regional biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and intellectual property. 17 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 831-894 (2009).
Neal, James G. A lay perspective on the copyright wars: a report from the trenches of the Section 108 Study Group. Horace S. Manges Lecture: April 1, 2008. 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts 193-205 (2009).
Sarnoff, Joshua D. and Christopher M. Holman. Recent developments affecting the enforcement, procurement, and licensing of research tool patents. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1299-1366 (2008).
Schwartz, David L. Courting specialization: an empirical study of claim construction comparing patent litigation before federal district courts and the International Trade Commission. 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1699-1737 (2009).
Storm, Christopher S. Federal patent takings. 2 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 1-29 (2008).
Takenaka, Toshiko. Success or failure? Japan’s national strategy on intellectual property and evaluation of its impact from the comparative law perspective. 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 379-398 (2009).
Thambisetty, Sivaramjani. Legal transplants in patent law: why “utility” in the new “industrial applicability”. 49 Jurimetrics J. 155-201 (2009).
Torrance, Andrew W. Physiological steps doctrine. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1471-1505 (2008).
Williams, Matt. Congress should amend the Copyright Act to protect transactional watermarks. 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1367-1409 (2008).
Zubler, Todd, et al. 2008 patent law decisions of the Federal Circuit. 58 Am. U. L. Rev. 747-945 (2009).

May 2009

Anderson, Horace E., Jr. “Criminal minded?”: mixtape DJs, the piracy paradox, and lessons from the recording industry. 76 Tenn. L. Rev. 111-158 (2008).
Anderson, J. Jonas. Hiding behind nationality: the temporary presence exception and patent infringement avoidance. 15 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 1-51 (2008).
Balganesh, Shyamkrishna. Foreseeability and copyright incentives. 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1569-1633 (2009).
Bently, Lionel. R. v. The Author: from death penalty to community service. 20th Annual Horace S. Manges Lecture, Tuesday, April 10, 2007. 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts 1-109 (2008).
Braegelmann, Tom. Copyright law in and under the Constitution: a comparison between American and German constitutional copyright law. 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 99-144 (2009).
Buzzacchi, Luigi and Giuseppe Scellato. Patent litigation insurance and R&D incentives. 28 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. 272-286 (2008).
Dinwoodie, Graeme B. Developing defenses in trademark law. 13 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 99-153 (2009).
Erlinger, Michael, Jr. An analog solution in a digital world: providing federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings. 16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 45-78 (2009).
Feldman, Yuval. The expressive function of trade secret law: legality, cost, intrinsic motivation, and consensus. 6 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 177-212 (2009)
Fromer, Jeanne C. Patent disclosure. 94 Iowa L. Rev. 539-606 (2009).
Golden, John M. The Supreme Court as “prime percolator”: a prescription for appellate review of questions in patent law. 56 UCLA L. Rev. 657-724 (2009).
Grinvald, Leah Chan. Making much ado about theory: the Chinese Trademark Law. 15 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 53-106 (2008).
Hirshman, Neil S., Michael G. Fatall and Peter M. Spingola. Is silence really golden? Assumption and assignment of intellectual property licenses in bankruptcy. 3 Hastings Bus. L.J. 197-221 (2007).
Ho, Cynthia M. Patent breaking or balancing?: separating strands of fact from fiction under TRIPS. 34 N.C. J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 371-469 (2009).
Karjala, Dennis S. Judicial oversight of copyright legislation. 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 253-279 (2008).
Locke, Zac. How to save the recording industry?: charge less. 16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 79-88 (2009).
Mueller, Janice M. Chemicals, combinations, and “common sense”: how the Supreme Court’s KSR decision is changing Federal Circuit obviousness determinations in pharmaceutical and biotechnology cases. 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 281-314 (2008).
Munzer, Stephen R. and Kal Raustiala. The uneasy case for intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge. 27 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 37-97 (2009).
Oguamanam, Chidi. Patents and traditional medicine: digital capture, creative legal interventions and the dialectics of knowledge transformation. 15 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 489-528 (2008).
O’Regan, Cecily Anne. Is intellectual property a hurdle for transferring technology to developing countries? If so, how high a hurdle? 1 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 1-19 (2009).
Petherbridge, Lee. The claim construction effect. 15 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 215-266 (2008).
Server, Alfred C., M.D., Nader Mousavi and Jane M. Love. Reach-through rights and the patentability, enforcement, and licensing of patents on drug discovery tools. 1 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 21-121 (2009).
Spellman, Barbara A. and Frederick Schauer. Artists’ moral rights and the psychology of ownership. 83 Tul. L. Rev. 661-678 (2009).
Vertinsky, Liza. Reconsidering patent licensing in the aftermath of MedImmune. 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1609-1657 (2009).
Weirich, C. Geoffrey and Daniel P. Hart. Protecting trade secrets and confidential information in Georgia. 60 Mercer L. Rev. 533-561 (2009).
White, Katherine E. How the Supreme Court’s decisions over the last decade have re-shaped Federal Circuit jurisprudence. 35 N. Ky. L. Rev. 315-324 (2008).

April 2009

Armstrong, Timothy K. Fair circumvention. 74 Brook. L. Rev. 1-50 (2008).
Burrell, Robert and Kimberlee Weatherall. Exporting controversy? Reactions to the copyright provisions of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement: lessons for U.S. trade policy. 2008 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y 259-319.
Chiappetta, Vincent. Employee blogs and trade secrets: legal response to technological change. 11 NEXUS 31-44 (2006).
de Werra, Jacques. Fighting against biopiracy: does the obligation to disclose in patent applications truly help? 42 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 143-179 (2009).
Durham, Alan L. Natural laws and inevitable infringement. 93 Minn. L. Rev. 933-997 (2009).
Eng, Regina Nelson. A likelihood of infringement. The purchase and sale of trademarks as AdWords. 18 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 493-541 (2008).
Fagundes, David. Crystals in the public domain. 50 B.C. L. Rev. 139-195 (2009).
Gherman, Sergiu. Harmony and functionality: a gloss on the substantial similarity test in music copyright. 19 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 483-517 (2009).
Gore, Kiran Nasir. Trademark battles in a Babrie-cyber world: trademark protection of website domain names and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. 31 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 193-221 (2009).
Greenbaum, Dov. Academia to industry technology transfer: an alternative to the Bayh-Dole system for both developed and developing nations. 19 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 311-411 (2009).
Kane, Eileen M. Patent-mediated standards in genetic testing. 2008 Utah L. Rev. 835-874.
Newman, Daniel E. Portraying a branded world. 2008 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y 357-381.
Ng, Alina. The social contract and authorship: allocating entitlements in the copyright system. 19 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 413-482 (2009).
Nihoul, Paul. The limitation of intellectual property in the name of competition. 32 Fordham Int’l L.J. 489-524 (2009).
Osborn, Lucas. Tax strategy patents: why the tax community should not exclude the patent system. 18 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 325-380 (2008).
Pessach, Guy. Reciprocal share-alike exemptions in copyright law. 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 1245-1294 (2008).
Rabinowitz, Aaron B. Criminal prosecution for copyright infringement of unregistered works: a bite at an unripe apple? 49 Santa Clara L. Rev. 793-819 (2009).
Robins, Martin B. Intellectual property and information technology due diligence in mergers and acquisitions: a more substantive approach needed. 2008 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y 321-356.
Roin, Benjamin N. Unpatentable drugs and the standards of patentability. 87 Tex. L. Rev. 503-570 (2009).
Shi, Wei. Incurable or remediable? Clues to undoing the Gordian knot tied by intellectual property rights enforcement in China. 30 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 541-583 (2008).
Snow, Ned. Copytraps. 84 Ind. L.J. 285-329 (2009).
Sovacool, Benjamin K. Placing a glove on the invisible hand: how intellectual property rights may impede innovation in energy research and development (R & D). 18 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 381-440 (2008).
Strandburg, Katherine J. Evolving innovation paradigms and the global intellectual property regime. 41 Conn. L. Rev. 861-920 (2009).
Whaley, Sean D. “I’m a highway star”: an outline for a federal right of publicity. 31 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 257-282 (2009).
Winickoff, David E., Krishanu Saha and Gregory D. Graff. Opening stem cell research and development: a policy proposal for the management of data, intellectual property, and ethics. 9 Yale J. Health Pol’y L. & Ethics 52-127 (2009).

March 2009

Adler, Amy M. Against moral rights. 97 Cal. L. Rev. 263-300 (2009).
Afori, Orit Fischman. Implied license: an emerging new standard in copyright law. 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 275-325 (2009).
Bartow, Ann. The true colors of trademark law: greenlighting a red tide of anti competition blues. 97 Ky. L.J. 263-291 (2008-2009).
Beale, Linda M. Tax shelters and the tax minimization norm: how does the patenting of tax advice transform the (global) playing field. 9 J. L. Soc’y 29-62 (2008).
Citron, Danielle Keats. Cyber civil rights. 89 B.U. L. Rev. 61-125 (2009).
Collins, Kevin Emerson. Propertizing thought. 60 SMU L. Rev. 317-362 (2007).
Einhorn, Michael A. Thinking outside the box: the next generation moves in the music business. 56 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 201-211 (2008).
Lemley, Mark A. The surprising virtues of treating trade secrets as IP rights. 61 Stan. L. Rev. 311-353 (2008).
Lemley, Mark A. and Bhaven Sampat. Is the Patent Office a rubber stamp? 58 Emory L.J. 181-206 (2008).
Merges, Robert P. and Jeffrey M. Kuhn. An estoppel doctrine for patented standards. 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1-50 (2009).
Montagnani, Maria Lillà. A new interface between copyright law and technology: how user-generated content will shape the future of online distribution. 26 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 719-773 (2009).
Opderbeck, David W. Patent damages reform and the shape of patent law. 89 B.U. L. Rev. 127-187 (2009).
Ponte, Lucille M. Preserving creativity from endless digital exploitation: has the time come for the new concept of copyright dilution? 15 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 34-101 (2009).
Quarmby, Ben. Pirates around the Second Life islands--why you should monitor the misuse of your intellectual property in online virtual worlds. 26 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 667-694 (2009).
Risch, Michael. Everything is patentable. 75 Tenn. L. Rev. 591-658 (2008).
Wong, Mary W. S. Toward an alternative normative framework for copyright: from private property to human rights. 26 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 775-843 (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)