Robert A. Lucas Chair of Law; Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Research
Access Professor Janis' author profiles on the following services:
How Should Damages be Calculated for Design Patent Infringement?, 37 REVIEW OF LITIGATION 241 (2018). [HeinOnline]
We're Your Patent Lawyers -- So Fire Us, Please (with Norman J. Hedges), INDIANAPOLIS BUSINESS JOURNAL (Aug. 24, 2018).
Mr. Nicholson's Cane, 59 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW 647 (2017). [HeinOnline] [SSRN]
Disclosing Designs (with Jason J. DuMont), 69 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 1631 (2016). [HeinOnline] [SSRN]
Expressive Eligibility (with Timothy R. Holbrook), 5 UC IRVINE LAW REVIEW 973 (2015). [HeinOnline] [SSRN]
Patent-Eligible Processes: An Audience Perspective (with Timothy R. Holbrook), 17 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF ENTERTAINMENT AND TECHNOLOGY LAW 349 (2015). [HeinOnline] [SSRN]
Virtual Designs (with Jason Du Mont), 17 STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW 107 (2014). [HeinOnline] [SSRN]
The Origins of American Design Protection (with Jason Du Mont), 88 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 837 (2013). [SSRN] [HeinOnline]
The False Allure of Patent Eligibility Restrictions in the U.S., 43 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW: IIC 1 (2012).
Functionality in Design Protection Systems (with Jason Du Mont), 19 JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 262 (2012). [SSRN] [HeinOnline]
Patent Law's Audience (with Timothy R. Holbrook), 97 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 72 (2012). [SSRN] [ HeinOnline]
Tuning the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR, 7 WASHINGTON JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & ARTS 335 (2012). [SSRN] [HeinOnline]
Panel II: The Global Contours of IP Protection for Trade Dress, Industrial Design, Applied Art, and Product Configuration (published remarks) (with S. Scafidi, et. al.), 20 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 783 (2010). [HeinOnline]
International and Comparative Aspects of Trademark Dilution (with Peter K. Yu), 17 TRANSNATIONAL LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 603 (2008). [HeinOnline]
Confusion Over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law (with Graeme B. Dinwoodie), 92 IOWA LAW REVIEW 1597 (2007) [SSRN] [HeinOnline]. Reprinted in 98 TRADEMARK REPORTER 1086 (2008). [HeinOnline]
Lessons from the Trademark Use Debate (with Graeme B. Dinwoodie), 92 IOWA LAW REVIEW 1703 (2007). [SSRN] [HeinOnline]
Technological Change and the Design of Plant Variety Protection Regimes (with Stephen Smith), 82 CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW 1557 (2007). [HeinOnline]. To be reprinted, U.N. FAO Legal Office legal studies papers (2008).
Dilution's (Still) Uncertain Future (with Graeme B. Dinwoodie), 105 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW FIRST IMPRESSIONS 98 (2006). [HeinOnline]
Rules v. Standards for Patent Law in the Plant Sciences, 24 LAW IN CONTEXT: A SOCIO-LEGAL JOURNAL 54 (2006). [HeinOnline]. Reprinted in AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION: SEEDS OF CHANGE (Jay P. Kesan, Ed.). Oxford: CABI, 2007.
Unilateral Refusals to License (with Herbert Hovenkamp and Mark A. Lemley), 2 JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 1 (2006). [HeinOnline]
Balancing Ease and Accuracy in Assessing Pharmaceutical Exclusion Payments (with Herbert Hovenkamp and Mark A. Lemley), 88 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 712 (2004). [ HeinOnline]
Commentary, Equilibrium in a Technology-Specific Patent System, 54 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW 743 (2004). [HeinOnline]
Reforming Patent Validity Litigation: The “Dubious Preponderance”, 19 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 923 (2004). [HeinOnline]
Supplemental Forms of Intellectual Property Protection for Plants, 6 MINNESOTA JOURNAL OF LAW, SCIENCE, & TECHNOLOGY 305 (2004). [HeinOnline]. Reprinted in 7 BIO-SCIENCE LAW REVIEW 32 (2005).
Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes (with Herbert Hovenkamp and Mark A. Lemley), 87 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1719 (2003). [SSRN] [HeinOnline]
Intellectual Property Protection for Plant Innovation: Unresolved Issues After J.E.M. v. Pioneer (with Jay P. Kesan), 20 NATURE/BIOTECHNOLOGY 1161 (2002).
Patent Abolitionism 17 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 899 (2002). [HeinOnline]. Reprinted in PATENTS (CRITICAL CONCEPTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW SERIES), (J. S. Miller, Ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010.
Symposium in Memory of David H. Vernon: An Introduction (with Hillary A. Sale), 27 JOURNAL OF CORPORATION LAW 499 (2002). [HeinOnline]
Transitions in IP and Antitrust, 47 ANTITRUST BULLETIN 253 (2002). [HeinOnline]
U.S. Plant Variety Protection: Sound and Fury...? (with Jay P. Kesan), 39 HOUSTON LAW REVIEW 727 (2002). [HeinOnline] [SSRN] Reprinted in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: CRITICAL CONCEPTS IN LAW, v. 3 (David Vaver, Ed.). London: Routledge, 2006.
Designing an Optimal Intellectual Property System for Plants: A Supreme Court Debate (with Jay P. Kesan), 19 NATURE/BIOTECHNOLOGY 981 (October 2001).
Patent Law in the Age of the Invisible Supreme Court, 2001 ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 387 (2001). [SSRN] [HeinOnline]
Sustainable Agriculture, Patent Rights, and Plant Innovation, 9 INDIANA JOURNAL OF GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES 91 (2001). [HeinOnline]
Inter Partes Patent Reexamination, 10 FORDHAM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA, AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 481 (2000). [HeinOnline]
On Courts Herding Cats: Contending with the Written Description Requirement, 2 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW & POLICY 55 (2000). [HeinOnline]
Second Tier Patent Protection, 40 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 151 (1999). [HeinOnline] Reprinted in 33 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW 17 (2001).
A Tale of the Apocryphal Axe: Repair, Reconstruction, and the Implied License in Intellectual Property Law, 58 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW 423 (1999). [HeinOnline]
Who’s Afraid of Functional Claims: Reforming the Federal Circuit’s §112, ¶6 Jurisprudence, 15 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW 231 (1999). [HeinOnline]
Rethinking Reexamination: Towards a Viable Administrative Revocation System for U.S. Patent Law, 11 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY 1 (1997). [HeinOnline] Excerpted in FOUNDATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (Robert P. Merges & Jane Ginsburg). New York: Foundation Press, 2004.
Unmasking Structural Equivalency: The Intersection of §112, ¶6 Equivalents and the Doctrine of Equivalents 4 ALBANY LAW JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 205 (1994). [HeinOnline]
Judge and Jury Roles in Equivalents Analysis: Commentary on Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, 74 JOURNAL OF PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE SOCIETY 621 (1992). [HeinOnline]