Patents and the University
Peter Lee

This Article examines the intersection of patent law and academic science. It advances two novel claims about the internalization of academic science within the patent system and the concomitant evolution of “academic exceptionalism.” [ . . . ]

Patent Portfolios as Securities
Michael Risch

This Article presents a new way to improve market formation and integrity by proposing that patent portfolios be treated as securities. If patent-portfolio transactions are treated like stock transactions, sellers steering clear of fraud laws may be forced to disclose information about patent value. [ . . . ]


Rethinking a Reinvigorated Right To Assemble
Nicholas S. Brod

Revived after a decades-long slumber, the First Amendment’s Assembly Clause has garnered robust attention of late. Endeavoring to reinvigorate this forgotten clause, legal scholars have outlined a normative vision of the assembly right that would better safeguard the freedom of association. This Note argues that such an approach—no matter its merits or its deficiencies—overlooks the Clause’s central aim. [ . . . ]

Following on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: The Dynamic Shareholder Derivative Suit
Gabriela Jara

Corporations that have allegedly violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) increasingly face a new threat of liability: cases brought by private plaintiffs in follow-on derivative suits. [ . . . ] The demand requirement, a procedural hurdle of derivative suits, has stymied plaintiffs that are unable to show that directors cannot disinterestedly assess whether to pursue a claim for violations. This Note proposes a framework that systematizes the factual scenarios under which the demand requirement could be excused. [ . . . ]

Taboo, the Game: Patent Office Edition—The New Preissuance Submissions Under the America Invents Act
Alexander R. Trzeciak

In 2011, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which included a provision allowing the public to present examiners with relevant publications that the examiners’ own searches might not otherwise uncover. However, this “preissuance submissions” provision and its related administrative rule are tempered by 35 U.S.C. § 122(c) (2006), which prohibits any third-party, pre-grant “protest or other form of [preissuance] opposition” to an application. This Note argues that Congress should amend § 122(c) to permit preissuance third-party argumentation [ . . . ]