Forty-sixth selected bibliography on computers, technology and the law: January 2014 through December 2014.

Position::7. Intellectual Property Protection of Computers and Technology 7.1 Patent through 10. Law and Technology 10.1 Technology Transfer, p. 432-479 - Bibliography
 
FREE EXCERPT

7.1 Patent

7.1.0 General

Christopher Allen, FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Antitrust Security of Reverse Payment Settlements in Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation, 53 U. LOUISVILLE L. REV. 115(2014).

Jonathan M. Barnett, From Patent Thickets to Patent Networks: The Legal Infrastructure of the Digital Economy, 55 JURIMETRICS J. 1 (Fall 2014).

Kent Bernard, Hatch-Waxman Patent Case Settlements--The Supreme Court Churns the Swamp, 15 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 123 (2014).

Gaia Bernstein, Article, The Rise of the End User in Patent Litigation, 55 B.C. L. REV. 1443 (2014).

Diane E. Bieri, Implications of FTC v. Actavis: A Reasonable Approach to Evaluating Reverse Payment Settlements, 15 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 135 (2014).

Miriam Bitton, Patenting Abstractions, 15 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 153 (Jan. 2014).

Jeff Bleich & Josh Patashnik, Supreme Court Watch: The Federal Circuit Under Fire, 40 SAN FRANCISCO ATT'Y 40 (Fall 2014).

Jeremy W. Bock, Neutral Litigants in Patent Cases, 15 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 233 (Jan. 2014).

Alex Boguniewicz, Discovering the Undiscoverable: Patent Eligibility of DNA and the Future of Biotechnical Patent Claims Post-Myriad, 10 WASH. J.L. TECH. & Arts 35 (Summer 2014).

Samuel Bragg, Note, Patent Law--System Claim Patent-Eligibility After Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 61 SMU L. REV. 187 (Winter 2014).

Christopher V. Carani, Design Patent Functionality: A Sensible Solution, 7 LANDSLIDE 19 (2014).

Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia, Article, Thirty Years of Flawed Incentives: An Empirical and Economic Analysis of Hatch-Waxman Patent-Term Restoration, 29 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1301 (2014).

Anastasia D. Carter, Overly Broad Patents on Nanostructures: How Patent Policy Obstructs the Development of Cancer Diagnostics and Treatments on a Macro Scale, 46 Tex. TECH L. REV. 561 (Winter 2014).

Hana Oh Chen, Combating Baseless Patent Suits: Rule 11 Sanctions with Technology-Specific Application, 54 JURIMETRICS J. 135 (Vol. 54, Fall 2014).

Colleen Chien, Startups and Patent Trolls, 17 STAN. TECH. L. Rev. 461 (Winter 2014).

Colleen Chien et al., Why Technology Customers Are Being Sued En Masse For Patent Infringement And What Can Be Done, 49 WAKE FOREST L. Rev. 235 (Spring 2014).

Stephanie Chuffart-Finsterwald, Patent Markets: An Opportunity for Technology Diffusion and Fraud Licensing?, 18 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 335 (Summer 2014).

Benjamin M. Cole, Brent J. Horton, & Ryan Vacca, Food for Thought: Genetically Modified Seeds as de Facto Standard-Essential Patents, 85 U. COLO. L. REV. 313 (2014).

Christopher A. Cotropia, Predictability and Nonobviousness in Patent Law After KSR, 20 MICH. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 391 (2014).

Christopher A. Cotropia et al., Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 MINN. L. REV. 649 (2014).

Thomas F. Cotter, FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: When Is the Rule of Reason Not the Rule of Reason?, 15 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 41 (2014).

Daniel A. Crane, Actavis, the Reverse Payment Fallacy, and the Continuing Need for Regulatory Solutions, 15 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 51 (2014).

Diane H. Crawley, America Invents Act: Promoting Progress or Spurring Secrecy, 36 U. HAW. L. REV. 1 (2014).

Ben Depoorter, Intellectual Property Infringements & 3D Printing: Decentralized Piracy, 65 HASTINGS L.J. 1483 (2014).

Sam Dillon, Note, Infringement by Blueprint: Protecting Patent Rights in a World of Low-Cost 3D Printing, 42 AIPLA Q. J. 425 (Summer 2014).

Natalya Dvorson & Mark C. Davis, Through the Looking Glass: Exploring the Wonderland of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 7 LANDSLIDE 8 (2014).

Timothy B. Dyk, Ten Prescriptions for What Ails Patent LAW, 17 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 345 (Winter 2014).

Robert W. Esmond & Alex Kwan-Ho Chung, The Patent Landscape of siRNA Nanoparticle Delivery, 11 Nanotech. L. & Bus. 15 (2014).

Christine Haight Farley, Trips-Plus Trade and Investment Agreements: Why More May Be less for Economic Development, 35 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 1061 (2014).

Donald J. Featherstone et al., Flexible Display Patent Landscape and Implications From the America Invents Act, 11 NANOTECH. L. & BUS. 181 (2014).

Robin Feldman, Ending Patent Exceptionalism and Structuring the Rule of Reason: The Supreme Court Opens the Door for Both, 15 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 61 (2014).

Michael L. Fialkoff, Pay-For-Delay Settlements in the Wake of Actavis, 20 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 523 (2014).

Emmanuel A. Fishelman, MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp.: Ignoring the Basic Premise that 101 Must Come Before 102 and 103, 9 J. BUS & TECH. L. 107 (2014).

Todd H. Flaming, The Rule 11 Approach to Sanctions in Patent Cases, 7 LANDSLIDE 44 (2014).

Stefania Fusco, Markets and Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Investigation of Non-Practicing Entities in the United Stales and Europe, 20 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 439 (2014).

Shubha Ghosh, Convergence?, 15 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 95 (2014).

Stuart J.H. Graham & Nicolas Van Zeebroeck, Comparing Patent Litigation across Europe: A First Look, 17 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 655 (Spring 2014).

Joseph Gratz, Obama's Legacy: Patent Troll Killer, 40 SAN FRANCISCO ATT'Y 36 (Fall 2014).

Hayden W. Gregory, From the Hill-Following the Bilski Near Miss, Can Business Method Patents Survive Alice?, 7 LANDSLIDE 2 (2014).

Jamie Hopkins & John A. Pearce II, Workable Solutions to the Challenges of Patenting an Innovative Process, 14 J. HIGH. TECH. L. 316 (2014).

Mike Homback, Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. 709 F.3D 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013), 24 DePAUL J. Art TECH. & INTELL. PROP. L 477 (Spring 2014).

Dmitry Karshtedt, Damages for Indirect Patent Infringement, 91 WASH. U. L. REV. 911 (2014).

Paul J. Komiczky & Elias P. Soupos, Considerations for Using Post-Grant Proceedings to Attack Patent Validity, 7 LANDSLIDE 34 (2014).

Thomas H. Kramer, Proposed Legislative Solutions to the Non-Practicing Entity Patent Assertion Problem: The Risks for Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, 39 DEL. J. CORP.L.467 (2014).

Alexander Krueger, Implementing Actavis: Three Tips for Future Courts Assessing Reverse Patent Settlements Under Rule of Reason Analysis, 15 MINN. J. L. SCI. & Tech. 115 (2014).

Sapna Kumar, Gene Patents and Patient Rights, 35 Whittier L. Rev. 363 (Spring 2014).

Megan M. La Belle & Heidi Mandanis Schooner, Big Banks and Business Method Patents, 16 U. PA. J. BUS. L. 431 (2014).

Matthew Lammertse, Note, Apple vs. Android: Global Software Patentability and the Mobile OS Wars, 39 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 793 (2014).

Peter Lee, Social Innovation, 92 WASH. U. L. REV. 1 (2014).

Mark A. Lemley et al., Does Familiarity Breed Contempt Among Judges Deciding Patent Cases?, 66 STAN. L. REV. 1121 (May 2014).

Whitney Levandusky, In re MSTG and the Shifting Role of Litigation-Related Patent Licenses in Reasonable Royalty Rate Determinations, 9 J. BUS. & TECH. L. 335 (2014).

Rachel A. Lewis, Comment, Inevitable Imbalance: Why FTC v. Actavis Was Inadequate to Solve the Reverse Payment Settlement Problem and Proposing a New Amendment to the Hatch-Waxman Act, 37 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1059 (Spring 2014).

Daryl Lim, Patent Misuse and Antitrust: Rebirth or False Dawn?, 20 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 299 (2014).

Christopher E. Loh & April Breyer, A Survey of siRNA Nanoscale Delivery Patents, 11 NANOTECH. L. & BUS. 29 (2014).

Brian J. Love, Do University Patents Pay Off? Evidence from a Survey of University Inventors in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, 16 YALE J. L. & Tech. 285 (2013-2014).

Fabio E. Marino & Teri H.P. Nguyen, Has Delaware Become the "New" Eastern District of Texas? The Unforeseen Consequences of the AIA, 30 SANTA CLARA Computer & High Tech. L.J. 527 (2013).

Laura Masterson, Note, The Future of Medical Device Patents: Categorical Exclusion after Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C., 20 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 274 (2014).

Shipra Mehta, Light at the End of the Narrow Tunnel, 24 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell l. Prop. L. 425 (Spring 2014).

Emily Michiko Morris, Intuitive Patenting, 66 S.C. L. REV. 61 (Fall 2014).

Emily Michiko Morris, Article, What is Technology?, 20 B.U. J. SCI. & Tech. L. 24 (2014).

Ruth L. Okediji, Is Intellectual Property "Investment"? Eli Lilly v. Canada and the International Intellectual Property System, 35 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 1121 (2014).

Greg Reilly, Completing the Picture of Uncertain Patent Scope, 91 WASH. U. L. Rev. 1353 (2014).

Greg Reilly, Judicial Capacities and Patent Claim Construction: An Ordinary Reader Standard, 20 MlCH. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 243 (2014).

Alexandra Robertson, Comment, The Future of Patent Protection for Post-FDA-Approved Generics: A Look at the Federal Circuit's Incongruous Interpretations of the "Safe Harbor" Provision in 35 U.S.C. [section] 271(e)(1), 10 Seton Hall Cir. Rev. 439 (Spring 2014).

Keith W. Robinson, Protecting American Innovators by Combating the Decline of Patents Granted to Small Entities, 88 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 379 (Summer 2014).

Eric Rogers & Young Jeon, Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Ride 11, 12 NW. J. TECH. & Intell. Prop. 291 (Issue 4, 2014).

Jeremy D. Roux, Supreme Court and Section 101 Jurisprudence: Reconciling Subject-Matter Patentability

Standards and the Abstract Idea Exception, 2014 U. ILL. L. REV. 629 (2014).

Karen E. Sandrik, Formal blit Forgiving: A New Approach to Patent Assignment, 66 RUTGERS L. Rev. 299 (Winter 2014).

Eric W. Schweibenz et al., Automatic Stay of Litigaiton Pending Inter Partes Review?: A Simple Proposal for Solving the Patent Troll Riddle, 7 LANDSLIDE 40 (2014).

Christina Sharkey, Strategic Assertions: Evading the Patent Marking Requirement, 12 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 103 (Issue 1-2, 2014).

Teige P. Sheehan, The Supreme Court Holds Genes are Patent-Ineligible Products of Nature, N.Y. ST. B. J., Sept. 2014, at 31.

Ted Sichelman, The Vonage Trilogy: A Case Study in Patent Bullying, 90 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 543 (Dec. 2014).

Adam Smith, Patent Trolls--An Overview of Proposed Legislation and a Solution that Benefits Small...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP