Jason Rantanen – Associate Professor of Law

I am very happy to announce that my fellow Patently-O author, Jason Rantanen, has accepted a tenure track position as an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law.  Professor Rantanen and I were classmates at The University of Chicago School of Law.  He holds an MA in History from the University of Chicago and an AB from Brown where he double-majored in Biology and History. For the past year, Professor Rantanen has been a Visiting Researcher at the University of California Hastings School of Law in San Francisco.  Prior to that, he litigated patents at the San Francisco firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.  Immediately following law school, he clerked for The Honorable William C. Bryson on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In addition to his writings on Patently-O, Professor Rantanen has written several law review articles, including a fascinating empirical study of inequitable conduct cases currently being published in the Southern California Law Review (with Lee Petherbridge and Ali Mojibi).

Rantanen will be filling a spot that opened when Mark Janis left for his alma mater, Indiana.  Rantanen's new Iowa colleagues will include one of the most highly respected and renowned IP/Antitrust scholars, Herbert Hovenkamp.

Congratulations to the new Professor!

— Dennis

41 thoughts on “Jason Rantanen – Associate Professor of Law

  1. “I’d also like to thank Dennis, for giving me the opportunity to write for Patently-O.”

    Maybe you could talk him into putting the comments back as before so we can actually see where the new comments are in a long thread.

  2. Academic air is some of the foulest there is. I’d rather be a lawyer than one of them.

    Second nominee for line of the day.

  3. IANAE: Besides, what difference does it really make to anyone who would address him as “Professor”?

    You are totally, 100% f’n right, but it is obvious you have never been in academia.

    Unless you have been you would not believe the level of animosity that is generated by one who is not a professor being called that — animosity not from the real professors so much as from the other underlings who are not being addressed as professor.

    Academic air is some of the foulest there is. I’d rather be a lawyer than one of them.

    Of course, if you are at the top of the academic food chain — by which I mean an NCAA basketball or football coach — then the respect is unending. “Coach” is the highest title there is, and an 8-digit salary goes with it. Money for nothing, chicks for free.

  4. Thank you everyone, especially those off on the constitutional rights tangent. You’re what make the comments fun to read! Not to slight the more on-point discussions, of course, which I often find to be quite insightful.

    I’d also like to thank Dennis, for giving me the opportunity to write for Patently-O. Preparing these relatively short posts under often significant time constraints has helped me – and continues to help me – immensely as a writer, and I always appreciate feedback (even on minor points such as grammatical errors or funny spelling mistakes).

  5. I join all of the spambots, children and insecure patent prosecutors in congratulating you on your appointment. U. Iowa has a great law school, and I understand that the job market is tougher than ever. Congratulations and best of luck.

  6. But aren’t the rights in the (C)onsitution merely enumerated rights and isn’t there something about all other rights staying with the people? Arent all those other rights just as much (C)onstitutional rights?

    Plus, playing on your favoriate (R)ight versus (R)emedy game, it could be said that the (C)onstitution does indeed create the (R)ight, but the enforcement (i.e. the remedy) comes from the law, er um, the (L)aw.

    Just an observation…

  7. has more to do with your ability to engender respect than with any particular level of achievement. Of course, I always requested that the students refer to me by my first name.

    If ya were true to your statement, ya woulda had the students call you “Hey dipshtt”.

  8. The premise is the origination (or acknowledgment) of the right – not where that right’s protection (or cause of action) stems from.

    That can’t be the case, because all rights “originate” from the Constitution in that sense. Without the Constitution, Congress would have no powers at all, no powers would be reserved to the states, and we’d have no valid laws. And yet, very few of our rights are properly considered “constitutional rights”.

    If you call it a “constitutional right”, what you’re really saying is that the Constitution directly provides the right. You’re looking for language like “shall not exist”, or “Congress shall make no law prohibiting”, or “the right … shall not be infringed”.

    just as no one (in their right mind) would suggest that the Constitution does not originate (or recognize) that right.

    I would suggest that, though you’re free to go on believing I’m not in my right mind. It’s not a right until someone says the people shall have it. We don’t have a constitutional right to commerce with foreign nations, or to have a post office, for example.

  9. that it is the Statute that protects the right

    should read

    that it is not the Statute that protects the right

  10. The case of Carter v ALK Holdings Inc. does not address the Constitutional right theory, but rather, holds to a private cause of action theory. It is a subtle difference and one you should think about before commenting further.

    The Constitution’s acknowledgement that inventors possess rights to their inventions does not confer constitutional protection over those rights any more than it does for other types of intellectual property.

    The premise is the origination (or acknowledgment) of the right – not where that right’s protection (or cause of action) stems from. No one is suggesting that it is the Statute that protects the right, just as no one (in their right mind) would suggest that the Constitution does not originate (or recognize) that right.

    I do have the feeling that you are in well above your knowledge level.

  11. when I was climbing the academic ladder, “Professor” was reserved for full professors. Assistant and associate professors were bird dung and dog dung, respectively. Not until one reached the horse dung level was the honorary title “Professor” used.

    Have things changed or are we just getting ahead of ourselves with this “Professor Rantanen” stuff?

    I had students refer to me as “Professor” when I was teaching lab courses as a grad student. I think it has more to do with your ability to engender respect than with any particular level of achievement. Of course, I always requested that the students refer to me by my first name.

  12. The power of Congress to establish the right is established by the Constitution

    PO-TAY-TOE – PO-TAH-TOE

    Carter v ALK Holdings Inc. ? You will have to do better than that.

  13. Let’s have some perspective here. Bird dung was quite valuable and sought-after during the war, whereas horse dung used to be the leading cause of death in New York City.

    It’s probably informal to call him “Professor Rantanen”, but “Associate Professor Rantanen” is too long and clumsy, and “Mr. Rantanen” seems to completely diminish his status.

    Besides, what difference does it really make to anyone who would address him as “Professor”?

  14. Well ya they have no loyalty to anything but money dont get me wrong. And come to think of it their inventor cliants wont be getting genuine representation just corrupted paid off by big bussiness false representation. With that uspto money returned by congress they should establish security for inventors and legal cost reimbursement for paralegal work.

  15. If inventors have no constitutional right to there patents then who does clearly the patent office then is taking money under false pretences and any thing denies a patent that is valuable should be forever bared from usage anywhere due to frauds

  16. Congratulations.

    But a nuanced point of etiquette: when I was climbing the academic ladder, “Professor” was reserved for full professors. Assistant and associate professors were bird dung and dog dung, respectively. Not until one reached the horse dung level was the honorary title “Professor” used.

    Have things changed or are we just getting ahead of ourselves with this “Professor Rantanen” stuff?

  17. “The attorneys should be forced to serve . . .”

    Ha, ha, ha, ha … fall down laughing.

  18. Smoke the Pot is not only wrong, he/she is dangerously wrong.

    CAFC has just upheld sanctions against an attorney for alleging inventors have a Constitutional right to their patent.

    Carter v. ALK.

    The Constitutional right theory was shot down some time ago with respect to copyrights.

  19. Windy city here is certainly working in reverse here probably dona—. In my case I am facing punishments greater than loss of liberty namely death from a mob of thugs. Clearly I have a right to a patent if not through the present supreme court rulings on obviousness then through the statues of frauds since something of great value has been stolen. The attorneys should be forced to serve because without this they will only want to serve wealthy big business and they will put all the patents in the wrong name just like theyve done.

  20. You missed it – the right is established by the Constitution.

    No, it’s not. The power of Congress to establish the right is established by the Constitution. If Congress repealed Title 35 tomorrow, you’d have no more right and no constitutional grounds to complain.

    This has been discussed here at length. Go read those discussions. There’s no need to go through it again.

  21. You are wasting your time responding to a Search Engine Optimization link generation robot. Good job!

  22. No, You missed it – the right is established by the Constitution. The right is merely fleshed out in the Law.

    Try to keep up.

  23. you missed the Article 1 Section 8 reference.

    No, you missed it. Show me where Article 1 Section 8 says that anybody “shall be entitled to a patent”.

  24. No – in your haste to be smarmy, you missed the Article 1 Section 8 reference.

    Thanks for playing though.

  25. 35 USC 102: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless”

    That would be Title 35 of the Constitution, then? Looks like a statutory right to me.

    Congratulations, Jason.

  26. Sure you have a Constitutional right to a patent, provided that your submission meets the laws outlined by Congress – Article 1 Section 8 and 35 USC 102: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless

  27. An indigent client only has right to counsel if they face a loss of liberty. Not getting a patent is NOT a loss of liberty. You do not have a constitutional right to a patent.

    Sure, you may think it would be “nice” if indigent inventors were assigned patent attorneys forced to represent them, but there also is no legal basis for it whatsoever.

  28. It certantly would be nice if we had at least some patent attorneys forced to represent indegent cliants like the criminal justice system. Is there an attorney in the house? As the worlds top inventor I also am the worlds top thought inovation leader and advancement instructor I need to figure a way to get paid for It though the resistance is fierce. Progress has so far turns to nothingness whenever you try to get paid for advancing civilization the criminals get paid and the justice system works in reverse.

  29. It sure would be nice if more of our instructors and ‘thought leaders’ in the world of patent law were actually patent attorneys…

  30. From my observations and knowledge inequitable conduct is rampant among the valuable patent cases before the court you have two theftors batteling for a patent and they cut the conciever the actual inventor out the of the deal disgusting.

  31. Really gr8..congrats…Here is a happy news for all who are in search for Indian patents. Indian patent search is now available online. User don’t have to always browse through volumes of hard copies or depend on bibliographic data available on unreliable sources. I saw an interesting article regarding the same in which the full details are given. Read the complete article at
    link to sinapseblog.com

  32. “The quality of your site is excellent. ”

    We don’t tolerate injustices done around here. This site is the best little lady, not to be confused with merely being “excellent”.

    If you’re gonna compare Patentlyo, you compare it to every other site ever made… that wasn’t made by Dennis.

    Also, you know he has his email right up there for you to send him an email right?

    CrouchDD@missouri.edu

    By the by, keep your finance outta my patentlyo, we deal with the useful arts around these parts.

  33. Hello,

    I am Emily Jones and I am a community member of some financial communities and websites. I just visited your site ( link to patentlyo.com ) and trust me you are really doing a great work for your site. I read few articles from your site and found them really worth reading. The quality of your site is excellent.

    After seeing your great work, I have decided that I will do something for your site and that is also for FREE!! :)

    I love to write articles on finance and its related topics and would like to contribute something for your site if you’ll grant me a permission. The article will be 100% original and I assure you that it will be published only in your site.

    Below are the some samples of my recent work, please check them:

    1.) http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/354093,debt-consolidation–how-it-can-help-you-to-get.html

    2.) link to helium.com

    3.) link to economy-news.co.uk

    4.) link to advisorworld.com

    Please let me know what are your thoughts on this?

    Waiting for your positive reply. You can Reach me at: emily.jones025@gmail.com (24×7)

    Thanks and Regards

    Emily Jones

    ( Facebook Profile URL:link to facebook.com )

Comments are closed.