Cycling Towards Confusion: Is there room for iFIT Fitness Services and iFIT Safety Glasses?

by Dennis Crouch

In its initial decision, the TTAB dismissed iFIT’s opposition to ERB’s I-FIT FLEX registration — finding no likelihood of confusion because the goods were in separate markets.  iFIT is a major manufacturer of exercise equipment like treadmills and stationary bikes and holds several trademark registrations for IFIT marks covering fitness machines, online fitness training services and content, software, and some ancillary products like apparel.  ERB Industries applied to register I-FIT FLEX for protective and safety eyewear sold at hardware stores such as Home Depot.  Although the two brands are at-times sold in the same online store ( and this type of overlap was not sufficient for the TTAB. In its decision, the TTAB rejected iFIT’s relatedness argument using an analogy to racecar drivers and chemists. The TTAB reasoned that while some racecar drivers and chemists may use safety glasses, that doesn’t mean safety glasses are related to racecars or to chemicals like ammonia.

iFIT appealed the Federal Circuit, and most recently Federal Circuit granted (more…)

Amazon Patent Enforcement Process Can Create Personal Jurisdiction

by Dennis Crouch

In a significant decision on personal jurisdiction in patent cases, the Federal Circuit held that using Amazon’s patent enforcement process (APEX) to target an alleged infringer’s listings can subject the patent owner to specific personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state. SnapRays, LLC v. Lighting Def. Grp. LLC, No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024).

Plaintiff SnapRays (d/b/a SnapPower) is a Utah company that designs and sells electrical outlet covers with USB ports and night lights. Defendant Lighting Defense Group (LDG), a Delaware company based in Arizona, owns a patent on outlet cover technology. In 2022, LDG initiated an action against SnapPower through Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program (more…)

Federal Circuit Untangles Trademark Dispute

by Dennis Crouch

Araujo v. Framboise Holdings Inc., No. 23-1142 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2024).

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision sustaining an opposition proceeding and refusing registration of the standard character mark #TODECACHO for hair combs. Procedural and Substantive: the Federal Circuit held that the TTAB properly allowed Framboise to extend its trial period; and that substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s finding that Framboise established prior use.  Opinion by Judge Lourie, joined by Judges Linn and Stoll.

In Brazilian Portuguese the colloquial phrase – “to de cacho” –  is often used to mean “I am angry.”  In the context of this case, however, it references difficult to control curly hair. (more…)

Post-Default Creditor’s Right to Assign, License and Enforce Patent does not Disturb Patentee’s Separate Right to Sue Infringers

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit’s new decision in Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., No. 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024) offers some interesting insight into leveraged patent transactions, and the effect of a lender’s ability to license or assign a patent on the patent owner’s standing to sue for infringement, especially (more…)

Discerning Signal from Noise: Navigating the Flood of AI-Generated Prior Art

by Dennis Crouch

This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system’s integrity.

The core task of patent examination is identifying quality prior art.  References must be sufficiently accessible, clear, and enabling to serve as legitimate evidence of what was previously known.  Although documents are widely available today via our vast network of digital communications, there is also increasing junk in the system — documents making unsubstantiated claims that are effectively science fiction.  Patent offices prefer patent documents as prior art because they are drafted to meet the strict enablement standards and filed with sworn veracity statements. Issued patents take this a step further with their imprimatur of issuance via successful examination.  Many of us learned a mantra that “a prior art reference is only good for what it discloses” — but in our expanding world of deep fakes, intentional and otherwise, is face value still worth much?

In a new request for comments (RFC), the USPTO has asked the public to weigh in on these issues — particularly focusing on the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on prior art. (more…)

Ikorongo Challenges Federal Circuit’s Heightened “Same Invention” Requirement for Reissue Patents

by Dennis Crouch

Ikorongo Technology has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s heightened disclosure standard for the “same invention” requirement in reissue patents. The petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit’s test, established in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668 (1942). Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ikorongo Tech. LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC, No. 23-1118 (U.S. Apr. 2024).

Reissue has long been a part of the U.S. Patent system, and today’s guiding statute (35 U.S.C. 251) looks substantially the same as that enacted back in 1836.  The basic idea is that a defective patent can be “surrendered” and a new patent issued “for the same invention.”  (more…)

The Non-Compete Ban: Impact on Patenting and Challenging Implementation

by Dennis Crouch

Non-compete agreements fly under the radar for most American lawyers.  One reason is that such restrictions have long been banned within legal practice. As an example, the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 5.6(a) prohibits lawyers from entering into agreements that restrict their right to practice law after terminating an employment, partnership, or other professional relationship. The rule’s stated aim is to protect clients’ freedom to choose their legal representation, but it also ensures that lawyers can practice their profession without restriction.

The increasing prevalence of non-compete agreements in other industries has drawn increasing scrutiny from policymakers and regulators, leading to the FTC’s recent rule banning most non-compete agreements across the United States.  The new rule was announced on April 23, 2024 following a 3-2 vote by the FTC Commissioners (along party lines, with Democrats in the majority). It is set to take effect 120 days later (August 21, 2024). As I discuss below, two lawsuits have already been filed seeking to derail implementation.


Without Undue Experimentation vs Without Any Experiments

by Dennis Crouch

I was rereading the Supreme Court’s recent enablement decision of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023) and was struck by the Supreme Court’s statement that its 19th Century decision of Wood v. Underhill, 46 U.S. 1 (1847) “establish[ed] that a specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention.”  This statement from Amgen is surprising because Chief Justice Taney’s decision in Wood includes a seemingly contrary statement that bars any experimentation (more…)

Guest post by Profs. Chien and Grennan: Unpacking the Innovator-Inventor Gap: Evidence from Engineers

By: Colleen V. Chien, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, and Jillian Grennan, Associate Professor of Finance and Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business. This post is part of a series by the Diversity Pilots Initiative. The Initiative will be hosting its second conference at Emory University Law School in Atlanta on Friday, September 20, 2024. Indicate your interest by signing up here.)

Which IP professionals ascend to partnership or top counsel roles? Which professors publish in the top journals? And which innovators become inventors? This question of who among lawyers, academics, or innovators reaches the next milestone in the progression of a career is relevant in many settings. It has been a central focus in the world of innovation since USPTO’s Director Kathi Vidal’s urgent call to ensure that we “get everyone off the bench” in order to solve world problems and foster economic prosperity.

This call is motivated by the observation that while women comprise 35% of the STEM workforce, they make up only 13% of inventors; Black professionals represent 9% of STEM workers but only 1.2% of inventors. What explains this innovator-inventor gap, the reduced rate at which underrepresented innovators become inventors?  Just as lawyers of varying backgrounds do not equally ascend in firms – with women comprising a slight majority of associates but just 24% of equity partners – the journey from conceiving an idea to becoming a named inventor on a patent is not just a matter of technical merit, but, rather, is significantly influenced by the broader work environment.  Because the progression from innovator to inventor happens largely behind closed, corporate doors, this critical gap has largely been overlooked and its causes, largely unexplored, despite technological innovations’ critical role as a driver of economic growth.

In our study, “Unpacking the Innovator-Inventor Gap: Evidence from Engineers,” which reports on a survey of close to 4,000 innovators across 4 firms, and collaborating firms’ invention disclosure databases, we use detailed administrative and survey data to unpack the forces underlying this gap and provide novel insights into the invention process, how it is influenced by firm policies, and its variation by demographics.  The study’s unique empirical data reveal that inventorship, far from being a rote translation of ideas into patents, reflects an opt-in, competitive process, in which only one-third of engineers engage with their firm’s formal invention submission processes, and only half of these submissions progress to the patent application stage.  Strikingly, participation rates for women at each step of this journey are significantly lower.

A closer examination of the data uncovers additional nuance. While the gender gap is pronounced at all stages of the patenting process, engineers from underrepresented ethnicities exhibit higher engagement levels in both initial ideation and later stages, suggesting distinct experiences and that the barriers and incentives likely differ across demographic groups.  An important take-away for practitioners is that one-size fits all policies to encourage inclusive innovation may not work, rather targeted strategies to address the specific hurdles faced by women and underrepresented ethnicities are warranted.

We gain insights into the process of inventing and the challenges engineers face in going from having an innovative idea to becoming a named inventor by interviewing thirteen patent professionals and the resulting survey of engineers across various collaborating high-tech firms.  The next two figures highlight a key finding takeaway from our study.  Namely, that the path from ideation to patenting is a process fraught with potential frictions attributable to firm policies and systems, cultural norms, and personal experiences.

Figure 1. Variations in the invention submission process across firms

Figure 1 reveals the varied approaches employed by firms in the invention submission process. This figure captures the essence of the diverse practices across different organizations, showcasing the differences in how ideas are collected, reviewed, and iterated upon based on feedback. It serves as a window into the dynamics between engineers, patent professionals, and patent review boards.

Figure 2. Factors influencing the invention submission process

Figure 2 complements Figure 1 by delineating the myriad factors at both the firm (external) and individual (internal) levels that influence an engineer’s decision to submit an inventive idea. It categorizes firm-level factors into informal and formal institutions, such as culture and management practices, while individual-level traits include personal characteristics, early-life experiences, and desires for work-life balance.

Together, these figures underscore the need for a holistic approach to fostering an inclusive inventive environment, one that not only encourages the generation of new ideas but also supports their refinement and submission through processes that are equitable and transparent. As high-tech firms reassess their internal policies and practices, it is helpful to know the specific factors engineers perceive to be working for and against the invention process, in order to cultivate an environment where innovation can thrive.

Using well-established survey techniques, we determine a relative pecking order of factors that contribute to the innovator-inventor gap.  The hierarchy among factors contributing to the innovator-inventor gap as revealed by engineers is management, motivation, culture, the invention submission and review process, mentoring, peer influence, and last personal characteristics. Again, though, we observe that women and URMs perceptions of the factors facilitating invention are distinctive.

For instance, leadership and management practices influence the innovation-invention gap. Better management is the top factor that would increase idea submission. The disparity in engineers’ perception of management is notable, with women and URGs less likely to view management as supportive in the inventing process. Additionally, motivational factors, both extrinsic and intrinsic or pro-social, significantly influence idea submission, with a notable difference in URGs’ desires for creating social value.  Third, corporate culture, especially in terms of aspirational values like collaboration and integrity appear to contribute to the innovator-inventor gap. Female engineers are significantly less likely to (i) experience managers explaining important details, (ii) have people with whom to collaborate, and (iii) experience managers being ethical and making fair decisions. Overall, the creation of a pecking order underscores that the gap is linked to changeable aspects of companies, like management practices and corporate culture, rather than unique individual determinants.

Why is it important to address the inventor-inventor gap?  The final part of our study, in which we examine the patents granted not only to firms in our study, but all U.S. public firms, supplies one answer. We find that patents with female inventors working at firms with meaningful frictions in the innovation process, as proxied by ineffective culture and poor management, are of higher quality and more likely to be in the top 10 percent of citations than the patents of their male counterparts. This outcome is consistent with a model we present which predicts that the costs females face in refining the signal of the patent-worthiness of their inventive idea are higher because of the practices such as inadequate feedback early in the submission process or a lack of peers to collaborate with. Therefore, developing and testing pilots to address these types of information barriers is a particularly promising direction for research and policy.

In conclusion, “Unpacking the Innovator-Inventor Gap: Evidence from Engineers” presents new evidence on the competitive, opt-in nature of the invention process inside high-tech firms and determinants of the innovator-inventor gap, where STEM professionals transition unevenly to being named inventors. Most previous work on inventors focuses on factors influencing the extensive margin like access to STEM education or factors influencing the intensive margin like financial incentives. Our results point to a new, important locus point for inclusive innovation – the workplace and – frictions in the invention process within firms – as a critical factor that determines both who becomes an inventor and the quantity and quality of inventions they pursue. These frictions in the invention process help explain why there is a more pronounced innovator-inventor gap for females. Importantly, we provide evidence that these frictions are so costly to females that they prevent high quality and potentially impactful ideas from being disclosed to society.

By implementing targeted interventions and fostering a culture of inclusion, high-tech firms can unlock the full potential of their diverse workforce, driving forward the frontiers of innovation and securing their competitive edge in the global marketplace. As this analysis has shown, the path forward requires a commitment to systemic change, guided by empirical evidence and grounded in a deep understanding of the challenges faced by underrepresented inventors.

Three main takeaways:

  1. Innovator-Inventor Gap: Only one-third of engineers submit ideas through their firms’ formal invention processes, and just half of these become patent applications. Women participate significantly less at each stage in the journey from potential innovator to patented inventor.
  2. Pecking Order of Factors Influencing the Gap: One key advantage of using a survey to unpack the forces driving the innovator-inventor gap is we hear directly from the engineers who are driving technological progress about their views of the inventive process at their firms.  The hierarchy among factors contributing to the innovator-inventor gap as revealed by engineers is management, motivation, culture, the invention submission and review process, mentoring, peer influence, and last personal characteristics.
  3. Economic implications of the Gap: Analysis of citation patterns suggests that high-quality patents are lost in firms with larger gender gaps. Female inventors at firms with more frictions in the invention process receive significantly more forward citations and are more likely to have their patents be in the top decile of citations, consistent with the marginal lost inventions from women being of high quality.

Read the full paper here: Chien and Grennan, Unpacking the Innovator-Inventor Gap: Evidence from Engineers

If you find this insight compelling and want to stay informed on the latest developments, sign up for the DPI research updates today!

Guest post by Lolita Darden: PPAC’s Bold Strategy to Transform Patent Inclusion

Guest post by: Lolita Darden, Chair, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Public Advisory Committee; Managing Partner, Darden Betts Strategic Intellectual Property Counselors; Visiting Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School.  This post is part of a series by the Diversity Pilots Initiative, which advances inclusive innovation through rigorous research. The first blog in the series is here and resources from the first conference of the initiative are available here.)

This year the Patent Public Advisory Committee, also known as PPAC, turns 25.  Established in 1999, PPAC is a 9-member advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. Each member serves a 3-year term, and I am starting my second year. The primary purpose of the Committee is to review the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the USPTO with respect to patents. The Committee is also charged, by statute, to advise the Director of the USPTO on these matters and to prepare a report to Congress on the advisory actions the Committee has undertaken during the calendar year. You can find the 2023 PPAC Annual Report

As the new Chair of PPAC, I look forward to collaborating with the Committee and Director Vidal to serve the interests of the American people and the IP community in ways that enhance national and global competitiveness, accelerate growth in GDP, and drive innovation and entrepreneurship.

For those of you not familiar with PPAC, another function of the Committee is to provide the Director with feedback from our constituents about initiatives being undertaken by the USPTO with respect to patent matters. In that regard, I view my role as Chair as a facilitator, working closely with Committee members to provide advice and counsel to the Director based on feedback received from our respective constituencies.

This year, PPAC will continue to work with Director Vidal to link patents and invention more explicitly to national competitiveness, through both increasing invention activity and making patent protection available to more inventors around the U.S. It is widely known that innovation is a key driver of competitiveness and long‐term economic growth. It is also known that patents are important measures of innovation. Recent studies show that significant increases in U.S. innovation are achievable by encouraging inclusive innovation, which involves bringing under-represented individuals and communities into the innovation ecosystem. For example, ,” which represents substantial potential growth to the United States economy.

In my capacity as a private citizen and law professor, I have devoted countless pro bono hours assisting under-resourced inventors with protecting their rights in intellectual property, as well as educating them regarding the benefits of protection.  Research shows that the biggest deterrent to the pursuit of IP protections by individuals from historically resourced communities is awareness.  My vision for increasing the number of participants in the innovation ecosystem from under-resourced communities is education.  Ideally, law schools and law firms would pledge to offer community-based programs educating inventors from under-resourced communities about IP basics, i.e., what is protectable, how it can be protected, and pro bono resources for pursuing protection.  I am excited to continue this work of raising awareness in an advisory role as Chair of PPAC.

One of the interesting things about PPAC is that we are composed of individuals with different backgrounds and views on the U.S. patent system and how it should operate.  Nevertheless, we have been able to find common ground in thinking about how patents can best help the nation.  In addition to inclusive innovation, the Committee will continue to work to support the USPTO’s efforts to maintain a patent system that best serves the American people and the IP community.

Three main takeaways:

  1. Role of PPAC: PPAC, established in 1999, is a 9-member advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, serving 3-year terms. Its primary function is to review and advise on the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the USPTO with respect to patents, and to prepare an annual report to Congress on its advisory actions.
  2. Focus on National Competitiveness and Inclusive Innovation: PPAC aims to enhance national and global competitiveness by linking patents and invention more closely, promoting increased invention activity, and expanding patent protection to more inventors across the U.S. The committee emphasizes the importance of inclusive innovation, highlighting that significant increases in U.S. innovation and economic growth could be achieved by encouraging participation from under-represented groups in the innovation ecosystem.
  3. Education for Under-resourced Inventors: PPAC also aims to raise awareness and educational resources for under-resourced inventors about IP protection. This includes the vision to work with law schools and law firms to provide community-based programs on IP basics, aiming to increase the number of participants from under-resourced communities in the patent ecosystem.

 If you find this insight compelling and want to stay informed on the latest developments, sign up for the DPI research updates today!

SCT: False Claims Act Actions Based Upon Fraudulently Obtained Patent Rights

by Dennis Crouch

This post walks through a new petition for writ of certiorari involving claims that Valeant Pharma defrauded the U.S. government by using fraudulently obtained patent rights prop up its drug prices. [Read the Petition]

The False Claims Act (FCA), originally enacted in 1863 to combat contractor fraud during the Civil War, imposes civil liability on anyone who “knowingly presents” a “fraudulent claim for payment” to the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). The Act allows private citizens, known as “relators,” to bring qui tam actions on the government’s behalf against those who have defrauded the government. If successful, relators can recover up to 30 percent of the damages. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(4), (d)(2).

To prevent opportunistic lawsuits, however, Congress has sought to strike a “balance between encouraging private persons to root out fraud and stifling parasitic lawsuits” (more…)

UMKC School of Law Wins National Patent Application Drafting Competition

By Chris Holman

Last week the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office announced the winner of this year’s National Patent Application Drafting Competition (NPADC), the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. I teach patent law at UMKC, and was privileged to travel to Alexandria with the team of UMKC students (pictured below, from left to right, Will Knutson, Mark Trompeter, Joe Hooper, and Lukas Fields) to watch them compete and ultimately triumph in the final round of the competition. I am sure a great deal of the credit for their success can be attributed to our adjunct faculty members teaching patent prosecution at UMKC, James Devaney (Shook Hardy & Bacon) and Jon Hines (Senior Patent Counsel at 3Shape).

I would encourage any law student interested in pursuing a career in patent prosecution to consider participating in the competition next year. In a nutshell, (more…)

What is Next for Enablement and Written Description of Antibody Claims?

by Dennis Crouch

I had been following the case of Teva v. Lilly for a few years.  Teva has traditionally been a generic manufacturer, but in this case sued Eli Lilly for infringing its patents covering methods of treating headache disorders like migraine using humanized antibodies that bind to and antagonize calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a protein associated with migraine pain. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,586,045, 9,884,907 and 9,884,908.  The patents cover Teva’s drug Ajovy, and allegedly cover Lilly’s Emgality. Both drugs were approved by the FDA in September 2018.  A Massachusetts jury sided with Teva and awarded $177 million in damages, including a controversial future-lost-profit award.

Although the jury sided with Teva, District Judge Allison Burroughs rejected the verdict and instead concluded that Teva’s patent claims were invalid as a matter of law for lacking (more…)

AI Visualize and the Eligibility of Innovative AI Systems

by Dennis Crouch

The recent eligibility decision in AI Visualize v. Nuance, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. 2024), gives me pause to consider more general eligibility issues of AI Inventions. When does the design or creation of AI system elements qualify as an eligible invention?  In his recent article, Prof. Nikola Datzov wrote what we have all been thinking: “Innovative applications of AI are everywhere we look [and are] revolutionizing our society.”  Nikola L. Datzov, The Role of Patent (In)Eligibility in Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation, 92 UMKC L. REV. 1, 4 (2023).

In AI Visualize, the Federal Circuit (more…)

Seeking Clarity on Comparison Prior Art: Seirus Petitions Supreme Court in Heat Wave Design Patent Dispute

by Dennis Crouch

Seirus has petitioned for writ of certiorari in its long-running design patent dispute with Columbia Sportswear.  The petition asks two questions related to the comparison process for design patent infringement — in particular, the questions focus on what can qualify as “comparison prior art” used to provide context for the infringement analysis.

Questions presented: (more…)

Codifying Discretionary Denial of IPR Petitions

by Dennis Crouch

The USPTO recently released yet another Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) — this one focusing on codification of IPR/PGR rules associated with non-merits based “discretionary denials” of institution as well as termination due to settlement.  This is a controversial area because of that word ‘discretion.’  Unrestricted discretion by government officials is concerning because of the potential for arbitrary or biased decisions, lacking transparency and accountability.  In that frame, these rules are beneficial because they structure and limit discretion – hopefully making the outcomes more predictable and justifiable.  A key note – the rules here focus primarily on procedure (separate briefing for discretionary denials) and substantive issues relating to parallel, serial, and cumulative petitions. Although this is an important step, they do not address discretionary denials associated with parallel litigation (or other outside factors) under Fintiv and subsequent director guidance. This is likely the most controversial area of discretionary denials that is being left out for now.

Congress clearly intended the USPTO to have substantial discretion (more…)

AI as Author: Thaler v. Perlmutter Now Before the DC Circuit

by Dennis Crouch

The leading case on copyrightability of AI created works is now pending before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2024), centers on Dr. Stephen Thaler’s attempts to register a copyright for an artistic image autonomously generated by his AI system that he has named the “Creativity Machine.” The U.S. Copyright Office refused registration on the basis that the work lacked the required human authorship. Thaler filed suit challenging this determination.  The parties have now filed their briefs, along with one law professor amicus brief in support of Thaler.


False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. The key issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Crocs on Double Diamond Distribution and U.S.A. Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act.

This case began back in 2006 (more…)

What I’m reading from academic journals

I’m always on the lookout for interesting new scholarship related to intellectual property and innovation policy. The following are a few of the articles that I’ve been delving into this past week:

  • James Hicks, Do Patents Drive Investment in Software?, 118 NW. U. L. REV. 1277 (2024).
  • Ana Santos Rutschman, From Myriad to Moderna: The Modern Pharmaceutical Company, ___ Texas A&M University Journal of Property Law ___ (2024) (forthcoming).
  • John Howells, Ron D Katznelson, Freedom to Operate analysis as competitive necessity—the Selden automobile patent case revisited, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2024).
  • Christa Laser, Scientific Educations Among U.S. Judges, ___ American University Law Review ___ (2025) (forthcoming).
  • Garreth W. McCrudden, Drugs, Deception, and Disclosure, 38 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1131 (2024).