LAW REVIEW ARTICLES & CHAPTERS IN BOOKS
Patents Used in Patent Office Rejections as Indicators of Value, 22 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 76 (2025) (with David Schwartz).
Political Ideology and Judicial Administration: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic, 41 J.L. Econs. & Org. 91 (2025) (with Adam Chilton, David Schwartz & Kyle Rozema).
The SCALES Project: Making Federal Court Records Free, 119 Nw. U. L. Rev. 23 (2024) (with David L. Schwartz et al.).
Nonobviousness and Unmotivated, Yet Minor, Inventions, 21 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 281 (2024).
Gender Discrimination in Online Markets, 25 Am. L. & Econ. Rev. 228 (2023) (with Jonathan Masur & David Schwartz).
Obviousness, in Patent Law: An Open-Access Casebook 502 (Mark D. Janis & Ted Sichelman eds., 2023) (with Mark D. Janis ).
Patents as Signals of Quality in Crowdfunding, 2021 U. Ill. L. Rev. 193 (2021).
Crowdfunding and Intellectual Property Protection, in The EU Crowdfunding Regulation 205 (Pietro Ortolani & Marije Louisse eds., Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).
Law's Ability to Further the “Menstrual Movement”, 41 Colum. J. Gender & L. 53 (2021).
The Hidden Value of Abandoned Applications to the Patent System, 61 B.C. L. Rev. 2809 (2020) (with David L. Schwartz).
Convergence and Conflation in Online Copyright, 105 Iowa L. Rev. 1027 (2020) (with James Gibson).
Menstruation Management in United States Schools and Implications for Attendance, Academic Performance, and Health, 6 Women’s Reprod. Health 289 (2019).
Empirical Studies in Patentability, in Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law 281 (Ben Depoorter, Peter Menell & David Schwartz eds., Edward Elgar Publ’g, 2019) (with Ronald Mann).
Gender Disparity in Law Review Citation Rates, 59 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 771 (2018) (with Lee Petherbridge).
Higher Education and the DMCA, 25 Rich. J.L. & Tech., no. 2, 2018 (with James Gibson).
Who Benefits from Repealing Tampon Taxes? Empirical Evidence from New Jersey, 15 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 620 (2018) (with Kyle Rozema).
Heterogeneity Among Patent Plaintiffs: An Empirical Analysis of Patent Case Progression, Settlement, and Adjudication, 15 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 80 (2018) (with David L. Schwartz & Jay P. Kesan).
Physicalism and Patent Theory, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 1543 (2016).
Should Your Law Review Article Have an Abstract and Table of Contents?: An Empirical Analysis, 85 Miss. L.J. 295 (2016) (with Lee Petherbridge).
Patent Claim Interpretation Review: Deference or Correction Driven?, 2014 BYU L. Rev. 1095.
Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 Minn. L. Rev. 649 (2014) (with David L. Schwartz & Jay P. Kesan).
Copyright’s Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation, 92 Tex. L. Rev. 1981 (2014) (with James Gibson).
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400846
The Dominance of Teams in the Production of Legal Knowledge, 124 Yale L.J. F. 18 (2014) (with Lee Petherbridge).
Predictability and Nonobviousness in Patent Law after KSR, 20 Mich. Telecomms. & Tech. L. Rev. 391 (2014).
Patent Applications and the Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 23 Fed. Cir. Bar J. 179 (2013) (with Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster).
Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter?, 42 Rsch. Pol’y 844 (2013)(with Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat).
What is the “Invention”?, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1855 (2012).
Conflict of Interest Issues in Patent Litigation, in IP Enforcement and Litigation 2012: Civil and Criminal Update 519 (Practicing Law Institute, 2012).
Strength of the International Trade Commission as a Patent Venue, 20 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (2011).
Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit By Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 801 (2010).
The Upside of Intellectual Property's Downside, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 921 (2010) (with James Gibson).
The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law, 61 Hastings L.J. 65 (2009).
Copying in Patent Law, 87 N.C. L. Rev. 1421 (2009) (with Mark A. Lemley).
The Individual Inventor Motif in the Age of the Patent Troll, 12 Yale J.L. & Tech. 52 (2009).
The Unreasonableness of the Patent Office's "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" Standard, 37 AIPLA Q.J. 285 (2009) (with Dawn-Marie Bey).
Modernizing Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 723 (2009).
Describing Patents as Real Options, 34 J. Corp. L. 1127 (2009).
Compulsory Licensing Under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States's Decision in eBay v. MercExchange, in Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research 557 (Toshiko Takenaka ed., Edward Elgar Publ’g, 2008).
Internet, in 2 Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States 490 (David S. Tanenhau ed., MacMillian Reference USA, 2008).
Nonobviousness and the Federal Circuit: An Empirical Analysis of Recent Case Law, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 911 (2007).
Patent Law Viewed Through an Evidentiary Lens: The "Suggestion Test" as a Rule of Evidence, 2006 BYU L. Rev. 1517.
Nonobviousness as an Exercise in Gap Measuring, in 2 Intellectual Property and Information Wealth 21 (Peter K. Yu ed., Praeger Publishers, 2007).
Observations on Recent Patent Decisions: The Year in Review, 88 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 46 (2006).
Patent Claim Interpretation Methodologies and Their Claim Scope Paradigms, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 49 (2005).
Patent Claim Interpretation and Information Costs, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 57 (2005).
"After-Arising" Technologies and Tailoring Patent Scope, 61 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 151 (2005).
Counterclaims, the Well-Pleaded Complaint, and Federal Jurisdiction, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 1 (2004).
"Arising Under" Jurisdiction and Uniformity in Patent Law, 9 Mich. Telecomms. & Tech. L. Rev. 253 (2003).
Post-Expiration Patent Injunctions, 7 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 105 (1998).
OTHER
Using AI to Boost Patent Quality and Equity, Regulation, Spring2024, at 4 (with Colleen V. Chien).
Can IP Rights Be Reconceived Via Music Modernization Act?, Law360 (Apr. 21, 2020, 18:33 EDT) (with Matthew Pangle).