2011 Symposium

The Future of Patents: Bilski and Beyond
co-sponsored by the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology


The symposium was held January 28-29, 2011.

View the symposium schedule.
Read the conference papers.
Watch video of the panels.
Read the keynote address.

About the event: The Symposium featured leading scholars in patent law, practitioners from law firms and technology companies, and representatives of public interest organizations. The Honorable James Ware, Chief Judge of the Northern District of California, gave the keynote speech, and panelists included:

  • Morgan Chu (Irell & Manella)
  • Rochelle Dreyfuss (New York University)
  • John Duffy (George Washington University)
  • Robin Feldman (U.C. Hastings)
  • Mark Lemley (Stanford)
  • Gary Loeb (Genentech)
  • David Jones (Microsoft)
  • Peter Menell (U.C. Berkeley)
  • Vern Norviel (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati)
  • Marc Pernick (Morrison & Foerster)
  • Jason Schultz (Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at U.C. Berkeley Law School)
  • Steve Weiner (SRI International)

The Symposium featured several panels representing diverse viewpoints on patents. The Symposium explored the effect of the Bilski case and other recent court decisions in patent law on research and innovation in areas ranging from business methods and software development to genetic engineering and diagnostic patents.

Morrison & Foerster and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati were law firm sponsors of the Symposium.

Connect with SLR

Stanford Law Review on Twitter   Stanford Law Review on Facebook   Stanford Law Review on Google+   Stanford Law Review on Google+

SLR Mailing List

Subscribe to receive updates from the Stanford Law Review.

SLR in the News

The Washington Post mentions Richard A. Sander's article A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.

SCOTUSBlog references Jason Zarrow and William Milliken's SLR Online article Retroactivity, the Due Process Clause, and the Federal Question in Montgomery v. Louisiana.

The Atlantic mentions Keith Cunningham's article Father Time: Flexible Work Arrangements and the Law Firm's Failure of the Family.

Justice Scalia cites Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs in his concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Breyer cites Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Kagan cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in her dissent in Yates v. United States.

SCOTUSBlog references Mark Rienzi's SLR Online article Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The National Journal praises Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The Economist references The Drone as a Privacy Catalyst.

The Green Bag lauds Toby Heytens's article Reassignment as an "exemplar of good legal writing" from 2014.

The Economist mentions Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm in the cover article of its August 30 issue.

The Economist writes a column on Stephen Bainbridge's and Todd Henderson's article Boards-R-Us.

SCOTUSBlog cites Eric Hansford's Volume 63 note Measuring the Effects of Specialization with Circuit Split Resolutions in one of its Academic Highlight blog posts.

The Atlantic and The National Journal cite Jeffrey Rosen's SLR Online article The Right to Be Forgotten.

WSJ MoneyBeat writes a column about Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm.

Education Law Prof Blog discusses Joshua Weishart's article Transcending Equality Versus Adequacy.

The D.C. Circuit cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in Loving v. IRS (PDF).

Constitutional Law Prof Blog discusses Toby Heytens's article Reassignment.

Justice Scalia cites Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Federal Statutes in his dissent in Windsor.

Popular Online