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

Nikola Datzov & Jason Rantanen,  Predictable Unpredictability: The Surprising Administrability of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 110 Iowa L. Rev. 667 (2025) (available at https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2025-01/ILR-110-Datzov-Rantanen.pdf)

Paul Gugliuzza, Jonathan Nash, & Jason Rantanen, Expertise, Ideology, and Dissent, 74 Am. U. L. Rev. 877 (2024)

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)

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)

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

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

 

Articles by other authors using data from the Compendium:

Matthew G. Sipe, Patent Law 101: I Know it when I See it, 37 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 447, 458 (2024). 

Jason Reinicke, Decisionmaking in Patent Cases at the Federal Circuit, 81 Washington & Lee L. Rev. 169 (2024)

Jordana R. Goodman, Paul R. Gugliuzza, and Rachel Rebouché, Inequality on Appeal: The Intersection of Race and Gender in Patent Litigation, 58 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 829, 855 (2024). 

Joshua L. Sohn & Paul R. Gugliuzza, Certifying Questions in Patent Cases, 109 Iowa L. Rev. 791, 815 (2024). 

S. Sean Tu, Caroline Leadmon, C. Joseph Ross Daval, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, Inequitable Conduct and Invalidation of Patents Related to Food and Drug Administration–Regulated Products, 330 JAMA 2119 (2023) 

Jeremy W. Bock, The Federal Circuit's Experimental Prism, 92 Fordham L. Rev. 601, 620 (2023). 

Jeremy W. Bock, Forcing Supreme Court Review by the Federal Circuit, 71 Buff. L. Rev. 83, 145 (2023). 

David O. Taylor, The Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 103 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 395, 413 (2023). 

Charles Duan, On the Appeal of Drug Patent Challenges, 72 American U. L. Rev. 1177 (2023)

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. 

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