Forty-fifth selected bibliography on computers, technology, and the law.

Position:P. 347-391

7.1 Patent

7.1.0 General

Alexa L. Ashworth, Race You to the Patent Office! How the New Patent Reform Act Will Affect Technology Transfer at Universities, 23 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 383 (2013).

T. Leigh Anenson & Gideon Mark, Inequitable Conduct in Retrospective: Understanding Unclean Hands in Patent Remedies, 62 AM. U. L. REV. 1441 (2013).

Sandy Azer, A Three-Tiered Public Policy Approach to Copyright Misuse in the Context of Tying Arrangements, 82 FORDHAM L. REV. 81 (2013).

Josh Baskin, Competitive Regulation of Mobile Software Systems: Promoting Innovation through Reform of Antitrust and Patent Laws, 64 HASTINGS L.J. 1727 (2013).

Melissa Black, Innovation and Consumers as Casualties of War in Global Technology Patent Battles, 22 TRANSNAT'L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 181 (2013).

Daniel Harris Brean, Asserting Patents to Combat Infringement via 3D Printing: It's No "Use", 23 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 771 (2013).

Tom Brody, Negative Limitations in Patent Claims, 41 AM. L. ASS'N Q. J. 29 (2013).

Thomas P. Brown and Samuel C. Zun, Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC v. RPX Corporation--Can't we at Least Agree that There's No Per Se Claim Here?, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Summer 2013, at 36.

Josh Calabro, Robert H. Fischer, & Douglas Sharrott, CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation: En Banc Federal Circuit Finds Financial Services Patents Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. [section]101 As Patent Ineligible, 25 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L. J. 24 (2013).

Joseph S. Classe, Genes and the Supremes: Will the Supreme Court Uphold Patents for Isolated Gene Sequences?, 45 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 533 (2013).

Jorge L. Contreras, Fixing FRAND: A Pseduo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing, 79 ANTITRUST L. J. 47 (2013).

Peter J. Corcoran, III, Strategies to Save Resources and Reduce E-Discovery Costs in Patent Litigation, 21 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 103 (2013).

Carlos M. Correa, Innovation and Technology Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: The Need to Engage in a Substantive Debate, 22 REV. EUR. COMP. & INT'L ENVTL. L. 54 (2013).

Vianney Dequiedt & Bruno Versaevel, Patent Pools and Dynamic R&D Incentives, 36 INT'L REV. L. & ECON. 59 (2013).

Aaron Edlin, et al, Activating Actavis, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 16-23.

Kevin Emerson Collins, Patent Law's Functionality Malfunction and the Problem of Overbroad, Functional Software Patents, 90 WASH. U. L. REV. 1399 (2013).

Amanda Frye, "Inextricably Commingled": A Restitution Perspective in Patent Remedies, 26 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 669 (2013).

John M. Golden, Patent Privateers: Private Enforcement's Historical Survivors, 26 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 545 (2013).

John M. Golden, The USPTO's Soft Power: Who Needs Chevron Deference?, 66 SMU L. REV. 541 (2013).

Leon B Greenfield et al., SEP Enforcement Disputes Beyond the Water's Edge: A Survey of Recent Non-U.S. Decisions, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Summer 2013, at 50-56.

James A. Gromada, Special Considerations for Protecting Business Method Inventions via Patents, 25 INTELL. PROP. &TECH.L.J. 7(2013).

John D. Harkrider, Seeing the Forest Through the SEPs, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Summer 2013, at 22-29.

Joseph Kattan, FRAND Wars and Section 2, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Summer 2013, at 30-35.

William O. Kerr & Cleve B. Tyler, Measuring Reverse Payments in the Wake of Actavis, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 29-35.

Amy Kapczynski & Talha Syed, The Continuum of Excludability and the Limits of Patents, 122 YALE L.J. 1900 (2013).

Kirti Gupta, The Patent Policy Debate in the High-Tech World, 9 J. COMP. L. & ECON. 827 (2013).

Mark A. Lemley, et al., Rush to Judgment: Trial Length and Outcomes in Patent Cases, 41 AM. INTELL. PROP. L. ASS'N 169 (2013).

Michael A Lindsay, Standards, Antitrust, FRAND Royalties, Injunctions and Free Speech: An Introduction, 28 ANTITRUST Mag., Summer 2013, at 7-9.

Michael A. Lindsay & Robert A. Skitol, New Dimensions to the Patent Holdup Saga, 28 ANTITRUST Mag., Spring 2013, at 34-42.

Zachary Loney, Bowmain's Beanstalk: Patent Exhaustion in Self-Replicating Technologies, 15 VAND. J. ENT. & Tech. L. 949 (2013).

Peter S. Menell & Michael J. Meurer, Notice Failure and Notice Externalities, 5 J. OF LEGAL ANALYSIS 1 (2013).

Kevin D. McDonald, Because I Said So: On the Competitive Rationale of FTC v. Actavis, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 36-44.

David Orozco, Administrative Patent Levers in the Software, Biotechnology, and Clean Technology Industries, 9 J.L. ECON. & POL'Y 615 (2013).

Laura G. Pedraza-Farina, Patent Law and the Sociology of Innovation, 2013 WIS. L. REV. 813 (2013).

Aaron Perahia, et. al., Intellectual Property Crimes, 50 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1199 (2013).

Rudolph J. R. Peritz, The Competition Question Unasked in Actavis: What IS the Scope of the Patent Right to Exclude?, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 45-50.

Alii Pyrah, Obama Administration Vetoes ITC Ban against Apple, 232 MANAGING INTELL. PROP. 10 (2013).

The Honorable Jimmy V. Reyna, Tariff and Patent: A New Intersection, The Forward, 62 AM. U. L. REV. 779 (2013).

Arti K. Rai, Intellectual Property and Information Law in the Administrative State Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Symposium: Improving (Software) Patent Quality through the Administrative Process, 51 HOUS. L. REV. 503 (2013).

Amanda P. Reeves, Muddying the Settlement Waters: Open Questions and the Unintended Consequences following FTC v. Actavis, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 9-15.

The Honorable Jimmy V. Reyna, Tariff and Patent: A New Intersection, the Forward, 62 AM. U. L. REV. 779 (2013).

Kelli Rockandel, A Myriad of Reasons to Celebrate: Why the Invalidation of Isolated DNA Patents is a Victory for Personal Property Rights, 38 VT. L. REV. 225 (2013).

Jacob H. Rooksby, Myriad Choices: University Patents under the Sun, 42 J.L. & EDUC. 313 (2013).

M. Sean Royall, et ah, Antitrust Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Product Hopping, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 71-77.

Paul H. Saint-Antoine, IP, Antitrust, and the Limits of First Amendment Immunity: Shouting "Injunction" in a Crowded Courthouse, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Spring 2013, at 41-49.

Robert J. Smyth, et ah, Area Summaries: 2012 Patent Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit, 62 AM. U. L. REV. 827 (2013).

Ian Simmons, et al., Viewing FTC v. Actavis through the Lens of Clayton Act Section 4, 28 ANTITRUST MAG., Fall 2013, at 24-28.

Robert A. Skitol & Kenneth M. Vorrasi, FTC v. Actavis: Inviting a More Nimble Rule of Reason, 28 ANTITRUST Mag., Fall 2013, at 51-57.

Theodore Voorhees, Jr., Reasoning through the Rule of Reason for RPM, 28 ANTITRUST Mag., Fall 2013, at 58-64.

Lane M. Webster, St. Jude Medical v. Access Closure: The Other Lost Profits for a Patentee's Subsidiaries, 16 SMU SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 237 (2013).

William Wynne, Patent Wars, Trolls, and Privateers: Killing Innovation, Death by 1,000 Lawsuits, 47 NEW ENG. L. REV. 1009 (2013).

J. Taylor Gooch, Note, Who's in Charge: An Analysis of BPAI Decisions Regarding Section 101 Patentability in Light of Bilski and Mayo, 95 J. PAT. TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 60 (2013).

Ilgyu Kim, Utilization of Patent Information for Humanitarian Purpose: Focusing on Technologies in the Public Domain, 12 J. KOREAN L. 135 (2013).

Timothy Lau, Offensive Use of Prior Art to Invalidate Patents in U.S. and Chinese Patent Litigation, 30 UCLA Pac. Basin L.J. 201 (2013).

Karen A. Lorang, The Unintended Consequences of Post-Grant Review of Patents, 17 UCLA J.L. & TECH. 1 (2013).

Richard M. Lee, Beta-Testing the "Particular Machine": The Machine-or-Transformation Test in Peril and Its Impact on Cloud Computing, 11 DUKE L. & TECH. REV. 175 (2013).

Mark A. Lemley & A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forest for the Trolls, 113 COLUM. L. REV. 2117 (2013). Teresa Lii, Shopping for Reversals: How Accuracy Differs across Patent Litigation Forums, 12 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 31 (2013).

Stephen M. Maurer, Ideas Into Practice: How Well Does U.S. Patent Law Implement Modern Innovation Theory?, 13 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 644 (2013).

Hal Milton, How the Internet has Removed the Historical Rationale for "Non-Analogous Arts", 13 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. l. 68 (2013).

David Olson & Stefania Fusco, Abstract, Rules versus Standards: Competing Notions of Inconsistency Robustness in Patent Law, 65 ALA. L. REV. 647 (2013).

Jacob H. Rooksby, When Tigers Bare Teeth: A Qualitative Study of University Patent Enforcement, 46 AKRON L. REV. 169(2013).

William Rose, Calming Unsettled Waters: A Proposal for Navigating the Tenuous Power Divide Between the Federal Courts and the USPTO Under the America Invents Act, 22 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 613 (2013).

Kelsey B. Wilbanks, The Challenges Of 3D Printing to the Repair- Reconstruction Doctrine in Patent Law, 20 GEO. MASON L. REV. 1147 (2013).

Huang Yan, A Dynamic Framework for Patent Claim Construction: Insights from a Philosophical Hermeneutic Study, 21 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 1 (2013).

7.1.1 Software Patent

Bernard Chao, Finding the Point of Novelty in Software Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1217 (2013).

Andrew Chin, Alappat Redux: Support for Functional Language in Software Patent Claims, 66 SMU L. REV. 491 (2013).

Kevin Emerson Collins, Patent Law's Functionality Malfunction and the Problem of Overbroad, Functional Software Patents, 90 WASH. U. L. REV. 1399 (2013).

Elise S. Edlin, Computer Claim Disarray: Untangling the Means-Plus-Function Doctrine to Eliminate Impermissible Functional Claiming in Software Patents, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 417 (2013).

Susan O. Goldsmith, et al., Where Are We Going in High Tech? Trends and Observations in Software, 48 LES NOUVELLES 229 (2013).

Sean J. Holder, The [section] 112, [paragraph] 6 Pitfalls for Computer Software System Claims Under the February 2011 Examination Guidelines, 95 J. PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 348 (2013).

Seong-hee (Emily) Lee, Software Patent Eligibility: A Call for Recognizing and Claiming Concrete Computer Programs, 95 J. PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 402 (2013).

Mark A. Lemley, Robert W Kastenmeier Lecture: Software Patents and the Return of Functional...

To continue reading