This page contains links to empirical studies and data files produced by the Rantanen research team, as well as citations to articles that have used data from the Compendium.
Jason Rantanen
Jason Rantanen, Studying Patent Infringement Decisions, Estelle Derclaye, ed., RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, Edward Elgar Publishing (2023).
Jason Rantanen, Eweosa Owenaze, Charles Neff, & Allison Williamson, Who Appeals (and Wins) Patent Infringement Cases, 60 Hous. L. Rev. 289 (2022)
Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza & Jason Rantanen, Extraordinary Writ or Ordinary Remedy: Mandamus at the Federal Circuit, 100 Wash. U. L. Rev. 327 (2022)
- Dataset materials: Rantanen, Jason, Gugliuzza, Paul, & Anderson, Jonas, Replication Data for Extraordinary Writ or Ordinary Remedy? Mandamus at the Federal Circuit, Harvard Dataverse (2022), https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/AGZNNN [https://perma.cc/MWH2-2E56]. ↑
Jason Rantanen, Lindsay Kriz, and Abigail Matthews, Studying Nonobviousness, 73 Hastings L.J. 667 (2022)
- Dataset materials: Rantanen, Jason; Kriz, Lindsay; Matthews, Abigail, 2022, "Replication Data for "Studying Nonobviousness"", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/A1UTYC, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:XGV8aya+UaIA8Xt6bidJ4g== [fileUNF]
Missing Decisions and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 170 U. Penn. L. Rev. Online 73 (2022)
- Dataset materials: Rantanen, Jason, 2021, "Missing Decisions and the Federal Circuit", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VNNBUC, Harvard Dataverse, V2, UNF:6:BtsK9NI5Rd7D+pSRro+O6A== [fileUNF]
The Future of Empirical Legal Studies: A Response to Holte & Sichelman’s Cycles of Obviousness, 105 Iowa L. Rev. Online 15 (2020)
- List of empirical legal studies published in the Iowa Law Review (Volumes 100-105) -
ilr_empirical_studies.pdf
Administering Patent Law, 104 Iowa L. Rev. 2299 (2019) (using data from the Compendium)
The Landscape of Modern Patent Appeals, 67 Am. U. L. Rev. 985 (2018) (using data from the Compendium)
Empirical Analyses of Judicial Opinions: Methodology, Metrics, and the Federal Circuit, 49 Conn. L. Rev. 227 (2016) - 2016 Empirical Analyses of Judicial Opinions.pdf
- Appendix A: Empirical Studies of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -
Appendix A (49 Conn L Rev 227).xlsx - Appendix B: Overall Reversal and Claim Construction Reversal Rates of the Federal Circuit in Appeals Arising from the District Courts - Appendix B (49 Conn L Rev 227).xlsx
- Appendix C: Reversal Rates Calculated Based on UGA Dataset - Appendix C (49 Conn L Rev 227).xlsx
- PatStats Coding - PatStats Coding (49 Conn L Rev 227).xlsx
The Federal Circuit's New Obviousness Jurisprudence: An Empirical Study, 16 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 709 (2013)
2013 Federal Circuit's New Obviousness Jurisprudence.pdf
- Dataset for The Federal Circuit's New Obviousness Jurisprudence - CAFC_Patent_Obviousness_Final_2013-6-25.xlsx
- Codebook for The Federal Circuit's New Obviousness Jurisprudence - Obviousness Codebook Final 2013-07-05.pdf
Articles by other authors using data from the Compendium:
Charles Duan, On the Appeal of Drug Patent Challenges, American U. L. Rev. (forthcoming)
Jason Reinicke, Decisionmaking in Patent Cases at the Federal Circuit, Washington & Lee L. Rev. (forthcoming)
Paul R. Gugliuzza & Rachel Rebouché, Gender Inequality in Patent Litigation, 100 N.C. L. Rev. 1683 (2022)
Melissa F. Wasserman & Jonathan D. Slack, Is Too Much Specialization a Bad Thing? Specialization in Specialized Courts, 115 NW U. L. Rev. (forthcoming)
Paul R. Gugliuzza, Elite Patent Law, 104 Iowa L. Rev. 2481 (2019)
Paul. R. Gugliuzza & Mark A. Lemley, Can a Court Change the Law by Saying Nothing?, 71 Vand. L. Rev. 765 (2018)
Amy Semet, Specialized Trial Courts in Patent Litigation: A Review of the Patent Pilot Program's Impact on Appellate Reversal Rates at the Five-Year Mark, 60 B.C. L. Rev. 519 (2019)
Presentation Slides
- 2022 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference - 2022_ipsc_slides.pdf