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

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:

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)