R. Polk Wagner

Information Wants to Be Free: Intellectual Property and the Mythologies of Control

This article challenges a central tenet of the recent criticism of intellectual property rights: the suggestion that the control conferred by such rights is detrimental to the continued flourishing of a public domain of ideas and information. I argue that such theories understate the significance of the intangible nature of information, and thus overlook the contribution that even perfectly controlled intellectual creations make to the public domain. In addition, I show that perfect control of propertized information - an animating assumption in much of the contemporary criticism - is both counterfactual and likely to remain so. These findings suggest that increasing the appropriability of information goods may in many cases grow, rather than diminish, the quantity of open information. Further, the benefits of control in fostering coordination and enabling flexibility in arrangements are essential elements of promoting progress in a changing world.

Is the Federal Circuit Succeeding? An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Performance

As an appellate body jurisdictionally demarcated by subject matter rather than geography, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occupies a unique role in the federal judiciary. This controversial institutional design has had profound effects on the jurisprudential development of the legal regimes within its purview - especially the patent law, which the Federal Circuit has come to thoroughly dominate in its two decades of existence. In this Article, we assess the courts performance against its basic premise: that, as compared to prior regional circuit involvement, centralization of legal authority will yield a clearer, more coherent, and more predictable legal infrastructure for the patent law. Using empirical data obtained from a novel study of the Federal Circuits jurisprudence of claim construction - the interpretation of language defining a patents scope - we conclude that, on this indicator at least, the record is decidedly mixed, though there are some encouraging signs. Specifically, the study indicates that the court is sharply divided between two basic methodological approaches to claim construction, each of which leads to distinct results. The dominant analytic framework gained additional favor during the period of the study, and yet the court became increasingly polarized. We also find that the significantly different approaches to claim construction followed by Federal Circuit judges has led to panel-dependency; claim construction analysis is clearly affected by the composition of the three-judge panel that hears and decides the case. While little in the results of this study would lead one to conclude that the court has been an unqualified success, we believe that the picture of the Federal Circuit that emerges is of a court in broad transition. Driven in part by new appointments and an effort to respond to its special mandate, a new Federal Circuit is emerging - one that appears to be more rules-driven and more consistent than before. It is too early to be sure, but the findings here, perhaps bolstered by the procedural and jurisprudential reform suggestions we derive from the results, suggest that the Federal Circuits unique position in the judiciary may yet be vindicated.

Poisoning the Next Apple? The America Invents Act and Individual Inventors

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the most significant patent law reform effort in two generations, has a dark side: It seems likely to decrease the patenting behavior of small inventors, a category which occupies special significance in American innovation history. In this paper we empirically predict the effects of the major change in the law: a shift in the patent priority rules from the United States’ traditional “first-to-invent” system to the predominant “first-to-file” system. While there has been some theoretical work on this topic, we use the Canadian experience with a similar change as a natural experiment to shed the first empirical light on the question.Our analysis uses a difference-in-difference framework to estimate the impact of the Canadian law change on small inventors. Using data on all patents granted by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and the US Patent and Trademark Office, we find a significant drop in the fraction of patents granted to small inventors in Canada coincident with the implementation of first-to-file. We also find no measurable changes in patent quality and perform several additional analyses to rule out alternative explanations. While the net welfare impact that can be expected from a shift to first-to-file is unclear, our results do reveal that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the March 2013 implementation of a first-to-file rule in the U.S. is likely to result in reduced patenting behavior by individual inventors.

Of Patents and Path Dependency: A Comment on Burk and Lemley

This Article delves into issues surrounding the relationship between technology and the patent law. Responding to Dan Burk and Mark Lemleys earlier article, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, the piece notes that the basic question posed by Burk and Lemleys article is a relatively easy question given the several doctrines that explicitly link the subject matter context of an invention to the validity and scope of related patents. This sort of technological exceptionalism (which this Article refers to as micro-exceptionalism) is both observable and easily justifiable for a legal regime directed to technology policy. In contrast, Burk and Lemleys identification of, and advocacy for, a broader sort of exceptionalism (macro-exceptionalism) is far more troublesome, implying a role for the patent judiciary in rather detailed policy judgments, for example the optimal breadth for biotechnological or software-based patents. The Article offers a variety of reasons that macro-exceptionalism is unwarranted, and indeed, notes that a primary claim of Burk and Lemleys - that the Federal Circuit has grossly missed the mark in its (purportedly) exceptionalist approach - previews the sort of problems created by pursuing technological exceptionalism in the patent law.