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

The Future of Empirical Legal Studies: A Response to Holte & Sichelman’s Cycles of Obviousness, Iowa L. Rev. Online (forthcoming)

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) - PDF icon2016 Empirical Analyses of Judicial Opinions.pdf

 

The Federal Circuit's New Obviousness Jurisprudence: An Empirical Study, 16 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 709 (2013)

PDF icon2013 Federal Circuit's New Obviousness Jurisprudence.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)

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)