- Working Without Chevron: The PTO as Prime Mover, 65 Duke Law Journal 1657 (2016).
- Redundancy: When Law Repeats Itself, 94 Texas Law Review 629 (2016).
- Too Human? Personal Relationships and Appellate Review, 94 Texas Law Review See Also 70 (2016).
- The Fracking Revolution: Shale Gas as a Case Study in Innovation Policy, 64 Emory Law Journal 955 (2015) (with Hannah J. Wiseman).
- Flook Says One Thing, Diehr Says Another: A Need for Housecleaning in the Law of Patentable Subject Matter [Symposium: Cracking the Code: Ongoing Section 101 Patentability Concerns in Biotechnology and Computer Software], 82 George Washington Law Review 1765 (2014).
- Litigation in the Middle: The Context of Patent-Infringement Injunctions [Symposium: Steps Toward Evidence-Based IP], 92 Texas Law Review 2075 (2014).
- The Path of IP Studies: Growth, Diversification, and Hope [Symposium: Steps Toward Evidence-Based IP], 92 Texas Law Review 1757 (2014) (with Robert P. Merges & Pamela Samuelson).
- Patent Privateers: Private Enforcement’s Historical Survivors, 26 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 545 (2013).
- Proliferating Patents and Patent Law’s “Cost Disease”, 51 Houston Law Review 455 (2013).
- The USPTO’s Soft Power: Who Needs Chevron Deference, 66 SMU Law Review 541 (2013).
- Patent Law's Falstaff: Inequitable Conduct, the Federal Circuit and Therasense [Symposium: Chief Justice Rader's Contribution to Intellectual Property Law and Practice], 7 Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts 353 (2012).
- Injunctions as More (or Less) than "Off Switches": Patent-Infringement Injunctions' Scope, 90 Texas Law Review 1399 (2012).
- The Supreme Court's Accidental Revolution? The Test for Permanent Injunctions, 112 Columbia Law Review 203 (2012) (with Mark P. Gergen and Henry E. Smith).
- Patentable Subject Matter and Institutional Choice, 89 Texas Law Review 1041 (2011). View Article
- Complex Economics and Patent Remedies, 1 IP Theory 50 (2010). <http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ipt/article/viewFile/1070/1165>
- Innovation Dynamics, Patents, and Dynamic-Elasticity Tests for the Promotion of Progress, 24 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 47 (2010). View Article
- Intellectual Liability in Context, 88 Texas Law Review See Also 211 (2010). View Article
- WARF's Stem Cell Patents and Tensions between Public and Private Sector Approaches to Research, [Symposium: Law, Science, and Innovation: The Embryonic Stem Cell Controversy], 38 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 314 (2010).
- The Federal Circuit and the D.C. Circuit: Comparative Trials of Two Semi-Specialized Courts, 78 George Washington Law Review 553 (2010).
- Principles for Patent Remedies, 88 Texas Law Review 505 (2010).
- The Supreme Court as "Prime Percolator": A Prescription for Appellate Review of Questions in Patent Law, 56 UCLA Law Review 657 (2009). <http://www.uclalawreview.org/articles/?view=56/3/1-3>
- Construing Patent Claims According to Their "Interpretive Community": A Call for an Attorney-Plus-Artisan Perspective, 21 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 321 (2008).
- "Patent Trolls" and Patent Remedies, 85 Texas Law Review 2111 (2007).
- Purposive Hopes for Better IP, 91 Texas Law Review 1413 (2013) (reviewing Creation Without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation, by Christina Bohannan & Herbert Hovenkamp).
- Science and Technology Entrepreneurship for Greater Societal Benefit: Ideas for Curricular Innovation, in Spanning Boundaries and Disciplines: University Technology Commercialization in the Idea Age 167, Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, vol. 21 (Gary D. Libecap, Marie Thursby & Sherry Hoskinson eds.; Bingley: Emerald, 2010) (with Lee Fleming & Woodward Yang).
Return to main profile page