Mark A. Lemley

Publications

• Fixing Double Patenting
  74 AM. U. L. REV. (2025) · American University Law Review · 2025
• Authoring While Dead
  59 GA. L. REV. (2025) · Georgia Law Review · 2025
• The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions
  100 IND. L.J. (2025) · Indiana Law Journal · 2025
• Protecting Consumers in a Post-Consent World
  77 STAN. L. REV. 1378 (2025) · Stanford Law Review · 2025
• Rule or Reason? The Role of Balancing in Antitrust Law
  100 NOTRE DAME L. REV. REFLECTION 139 (2025) · Notre Dame Law Review Reflection · 2025
• Free the Market: How We Can Save Capitalism from the Capitalists
  76 UC L.J. 115 (2024) · UC Law Journal · 2024
• Our More-than-Twenty-Year Patent Term
  39 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 681 (2024) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2024
• First Amendment Neglect in Supreme Court Intellectual Property Cases
  2023 SUP. CT. REV. (2023) · Supreme Court Review · 2023
• Atomistic Antitrust
  63 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1869 (2022) · William & Mary Law Review · 2022
• The Splinternet
  70 DUKE L.J. 1397 (2021) · Duke Law Journal · 2021
• You Might be a Robot
  105 CORNELL L. REV. 287 (2020) · Cornell Law Review · 2020
• Playing Both Sides? Branded Sales, Generic Drugs, and Antitrust Policy
  71 UC L.J. 307 (2020) · UC Law Journal · 2020

• How Essential Are Standard-Essential Patents?
  104 CORNELL L. REV. 607 (2019) · Cornell Law Review · 2019
• Remedies for Robots
  86 U. CHI. L. REV. (2019) · University of Chicago Law Review · 2019
• Privacy, Property, and Publicity
  117 MICH. L. REV. 1153 (2019) · Michigan Law Review · 2019
• The Sound and Fury of Patent Activity
  103 MINN. L. REV. 1793 (2019) · Minnesota Law Review · 2019
• Intelligent Design
  68 DUKE L.J. 75 (2018) · Duke Law Journal · 2018
• Can a Court Change the Law by Saying Nothing?
  71 VAND. L. REV. 765 (2018) · Vanderbilt Law Review · 2018
• How Often Do Non-Practing Entities Win Patent Suits?
  32 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 237 (2018) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2018
• Did eBay Irreparably Injure Trademark Law?
  92 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1795 (2017) · Notre Dame Law Review · 2017
• Expecting the Unexpected
  92 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1369 (2017) · Notre Dame Law Review · 2017
• Scope
  57 WM. & MARY L. REV. 2197 (2016) · William & Mary Law Review · 2016
• Antitrust Arbitration and Merger Approval
  110 NW. U. L. REV. (2015) · Northwestern University Law Review · 2015
• Our Divided Patent System
  82 U. CHI. L. REV. (2015) · University of Chicago Law Review · 2015
• The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement
  112 MICH. L. REV. 1251 (2014) · Michigan Law Review · 2014
• A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents
  28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. (2013) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2013
• Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest
  98 CORNELL L. REV. (2012) · Cornell Law Review · 2012
• The Myth of the Sole Inventor
  110 MICH. L. REV. 709 (2012) · Michigan Law Review · 2012
• Contracting around Liability Rules
  100 CAL. L. REV. 463 (2012) · California Law Review · 2012
• Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest
  98 CORNELL L. REV. 1 (2012) · Cornell Law Review · 2012
• Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries?
  9 COLO. TECH. L.J. 125 (2011) · Colorado Technology Law Journal · 2011
• Can the Patent Office Be Fixed?
  15 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 295 (2011) · Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review · 2011
• Ongoing Confusion over Ongoing Royalties, The
  76 MO. L. REV. (2011) · Missouri Law Review · 2011
• Point of Novelty
  105 NW. U. L. REV. 1253 (2011) · Northwestern University Law Review · 2011
• Who Chooses Open-Source Software?
  78 U. CHI. L. REV. (2011) · University of Chicago Law Review · 2011
• Owning Mark(et)s
  109 MICH. L. REV. 137 (2010) · Michigan Law Review · 2010
• The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights
  61 STAN. L. REV. (2010) · Stanford Law Review · 2010

• Copying in Patent Law
  87 N. C. L. REV. 1421 (2009) · North Carolina Law Review · 2009
• Distinguishing Lost Profits From Reasonable Royalties
  51 WM. & MARY L. REV. 655 (2009) · William & Mary Law Review · 2009
• Are Universities Patent Trolls?
  18 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 611 (2008) · Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal · 2008
• The Trademark Use Requirement in Dilution Cases
  24 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. L.J. 541 (2008) · Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal · 2008
• A Realistic Approach to the Obviousness of Inventions
  50 WM. & MARY L. REV. 989 (2008) · William & Mary Law Review · 2008
• Rationalizing Internet Safe Harbors
  6 COLO. TECH. L.J. 101 (2007) · Colorado Technology Law Journal · 2007
• Should a Licensing Market Require Licensing?
  70 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 185 (2007) · Law and Contemporary Problems · 2007
• How to Make a Patent Market
  36 HOFSTRA L. REV. (2007) · Hofstra Law Review · 2007
• Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?
  105 MICH. L. REV. 1525 (2007) · Michigan Law Review · 2007
• The Limits of Claim Differentiation
  22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1389 (2007) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2007
• Terms of Use
  91 MINN. L. REV. 459 (2006) · Minnesota Law Review · 2006
• Patenting Nanotechnology
  58 STAN. L. REV. 1 (2006) · Stanford Law Review · 2006
• A Quick and Inexpensive System for Resolving Peer-to-Peer Copyright Disputes
  23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 1 (2005) · Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal · 2005
• The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms
  104 MICH. L. REV. 101 (2005) · Michigan Law Review · 2005
• Inherency
  47 WM. & MARY L. REV. 371 (2005) · William & Mary Law Review · 2005
• Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle
  54 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 691 (2004) · Case Western Reserve Law Review · 2004
• Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property
  71 U. CHI. L. REV. (2004) · University of Chicago Law Review · 2004
• Balancing Ease and Accuracy in Assessing Pharmaceutical Exclusion Payments
  88 MINN. L. REV. 712 (2004) · Minnesota Law Review · 2004
• Are the U.S. Patent Priority Rules Really Necessary?
  54 UC L.J. 1299 (2003) · UC Law Journal · 2003
• Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes
  87 MINN. L. REV. 1719 (2003) · Minnesota Law Review · 2003
• Ending Patent Law's Willfulness Game
  18 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1085 (2003) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2003
• Place and Cyberspace
  91 CAL. L. REV. 521 (2003) · California Law Review · 2003
• Policy Levers in Patent Law
  89 VA. L. REV. 1575 (2003) · Virginia Law Review · 2003
• Is Patent Law Technology-Specific
  17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1155 (2002) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2002
• Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations
  90 CAL. L. REV. 1889 (2002) · California Law Review · 2002
• Foreseeability in Patent Law
  16 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1045 (2001) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2001
• Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry
  89 CAL. L. REV. 1 (2001) · California Law Review · 2001
• How Federal Circuit Judges Vote in Patent Cases
  27 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 745 (2000) · Florida State University Law Review · 2000
• How Federal Circuit Judges Vote in Patent Validity Cases
  27 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 745 (2000) · Florida State University Law Review · 2000
• Who's Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution
  53 VAND. L. REV. 2099 (2000) · Vanderbilt Law Review · 2000
• The Constitutionalization of Technology Law
  15 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 529 (2000) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 2000

• Standardizing Government Standard-Setting Policy for Electronic Commerce
  14 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 745 (1999) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 1999
• Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing
  87 CAL. L. REV. 111 (1999) · California Law Review · 1999
• The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense
  108 YALE L.J. 1687 (1999) · Yale Law Journal · 1999
• Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases
  48 DUKE L.J. 147 (1998) · Duke Law Journal · 1998
• The Law and Economics of Internet Norms
  73 CHI.-KENT. L. REV. 1257 (1998) · Chicago-Kent Law Review · 1998
• Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects
  86 CAL. L. REV. 479 (1998) · California Law Review · 1998
• Dealing with Overlapping Copyrights in the Internet
  22 U. DAYTON L. REV. (1997) · University of Dayton Law Review · 1997
• Convergence in the Law of Software Copyright
  10 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1 (1995) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · 1995
• The Antitrust Liability of Labor Unions for Anticompetitive Litigation
  80 CAL. L. REV. 757 (1992) · California Law Review · 1992
• The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine
  78 CAL. L. REV. 1599 (1990) · California Law Review · 1990