Policy Writing

Navigation

Policy Briefs & Issue Papers

IPPI scholars play an active role in the intellectual property policy debate, writing numerous policy briefs and issue papers about intellectual property rights and the technological, commercial, and creative innovation they facilitate.

Below are some selected highlights.

Recent Highlights

  • Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Fact Sheet: Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act of 2025 (IPPI Nov. 2025) | Description: Although the Constitution sets forth a patent as an exclusive right, the U.S. Supreme Court decided nearly twenty years ago that the right to exclude can be denied in favor of a royalty payment. Professor Kristen Osenga, IPPI’s Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy & a Senior Scholar, has written a fact sheet on the RESTORE Bill, which is Congress’s attempt to restore the exclusive rights to patent owners as intended by the Constitution.
  • Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Fact Sheet: Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025 (PERA) (IPPI Oct. 2025) | Description: Over a decade ago, a series of Supreme Court decisions created uncertainty around patent eligibility, particularly with regard to diagnostics and computer-related inventions. This created a number of perhaps unintended consequences, which Congress now has a chance to resolve with the Patent Eligibility Act of 2025 (PERA). In a new IPPI fact sheet, Professor Kristen Jakobsen Osenga explains PERA, what problems it solves, and why it is important for innovation and investment.
  • William Matcham et al, Measuring Patent Quality and Reducing the Backlog at the USPTO (IPPI Jul. 2025) [Fact Sheet: “Evidence on U.S. Patent Quality and Reforms to Reduce Patent Application Backlogs“] | Description: There has been a lot of discussion about both patent quality and the current backlog, along with possible ways to improve one or the other. This policy brief presents recent empirical findings on patent quality, highlights the limitations of certain metrics as a measure of patent quality, and proposes viable reforms aimed at reducing application backlogs while maintaining high patent quality.
  • Ani Harutyunyan, Matthew Chervenak, Mark Schankerman, William Matcham*, & Nishant Shrestha, Patent Quality in the United States: Findings and Suggestions for Policymakers, Sunwater Institute (September 2024) | * Dr. Ani Harutyunyan and Dr. William Matcham were 2022-2023 Edison Fellows. Dr. Matcham is an IPPI Scholar.
  • Kristina M.L. Acri née Lybecker, The Importance of Injunctive Relief and the RESTORE Patent Rights Act (IPPI Mar. 2025; original publication: Ctr. for Intell. Prop. x Innov. Pol. Blog Nov. 2024 [archived version]) | Description: In this policy brief, IPPI Senior Scholar Kristina M.L. Acri née Lybecker (Professor of Economics and Business, Colorado College) looks at the challenges introduced to the U.S. patent system by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC and how the RESTORE Patent Rights Act could “reestablish a rebuttable presumption of an injunction in favor of patent owners who prove their patents have been infringed. This would place the burden on the infringer to demonstrate that a permanent injunction is not warranted, eliminating the perverse incentives that encourage predatory infringement and encouraging preinfringement licensing negotiations.”
  • Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Restoring Predictability to Patent Eligibility (IPPI Mar. 2025; original publication: Ctr. for Intell. Prop. x Innov. Pol. Blog Apr. 2024 [archived version]) | Description: In this policy brief, Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy and Senior Scholar Kristen Jakobsen Osenga (Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law) looks at how, “[b]y restoring a level of predictability to patent eligibility, PERA will encourage firms to continue their cutting-edge inventive and innovative activities in the United States.”
  • Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Toward the Substitutionary Promise of PTAB Review (IPPI Mar. 2025; original publication: Ctr. for Intell. Prop. x Innov. Pol. Apr. 2024 [archived version]) | Description: In this policy brief, Professor Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) looks at how the proposed PREVAIL Act “contains reforms that address . . . [three] significant problems and are therefore especially welcome steps toward fulfilling the original aims of the America Invents Act.”
  • Eric M. Solovy, The TRIPS Waiver for COVID-19 Vaccines, and Its Potential Expansion: Assessing the Impact on Global IP Protection and Public Health (Ctr. for Intell. Prop. x Innov. Pol. Dec. 2022) | Description: In this policy brief, Eric M. Solovy looks at the impact the TRIPS waiver has had so far and potential impacts of the proposed expansion to the waiver.
  • Eric M. Solovy and Deepak Raju, Recent Threats to Global Trade Secret Protection: Why Compulsory Licensing Is Not (and Should Not Be) a Viable Legal Option (Ctr. for Intell. Prot. x Innov. Pol. Oct. 2021) | Description: In this Policy Brief, Eric M. Solovy and Deepak Raju look at the international and domestic law of trade secret protection and the potential for compulsory licensing of this type of IP right. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been increased discussion about waiving IP rights, including trade secrets, in an attempt to speed access to vaccines and other medicines. Mr. Solovy and Mr. Raju discuss the purpose and importance of trade secret protection, and why compulsory licensing of undisclosed information protected as trade secrets is not possible under current international and domestic laws.
  • Matthew Jordan, Neil Davey, Maheshkumar P. Joshi, & Raj Davé, Forty Years Since Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Legal Underpinnings and its Impact on the Biotechnology Industry and Society (Ctr. for the Prot. of Intell. Prop. Jan. 2021) | Description: This policy brief celebrates the fortieth anniversary of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision, where the Supreme Court in 1980 held that a genetically modified bacteria was patentable subject matter. The brief, entitled Forty Years Since Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Legal Underpinnings and its Impact on the Biotechnology Industry and Society and written by Matthew Jordan, Neil Davey, Maheshkumar P. Joshi, and Raj Davé, is dedicated to the late Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty, a pioneer in the biotechnology world, who passed away in July 2020. Chakrabarty had a great impact on the biotechnology revolution, ushering in a new era of technological advances that have benefited humankind. Through interviews with Randall Rader, former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, and Dr. Chakrabarty himself, as well as case studies on genetically modified seeds, polymerase chain reactions, and monoclonal antibody therapies, the policy brief explores the importance and enduring implications for society of the Chakrabarty decision.
  • Joanna M. Shepherd, The Legal and Industry Framework of Pharmaceutical Product Hopping and Considerations for Future Legislation (Ctr. for the Prot. of Intell. Prop. Dec. 2020) | Description: In this policy brief, Joanna Shepherd, Vice Dean and Thomas Simmons Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, discusses the practice of so-called “product hopping,” where a pharmaceutical company turns its focus to newer versions of its existing drugs. Prof. Shepherd explains that the product hopping phenomenon is incentivized by the legal and industry framework in which pharmaceutical companies operate. She looks at the existing case law on whether the practice violates antitrust law to find points of agreement, and she uses that synthesis to suggest considerations for future legislative efforts to balance the needs of consumers and producers. Finally, Prof. Shepherd warns that any legislation aimed at product hopping should be cautious so as not to ultimately harm consumers, reduce innovation, and increase health care spending.
  • Jonathan M. Barnett, The Long Shadow of the Blackberry Shutdown That Wasn’t (Ctr. for the Prot. of Intell. Prop. July 2020) | Description: This policy brief by former CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett looks at how the Blackberry litigation and the “patent troll” narrative ultimately contributed to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange that limited the availability of injunctive relief for successful patentees. Prof. Barnett then examines the problematic legacy of the post-eBay case law, which significantly shifted the legal infrastructure supporting the U.S. innovation markets. In particular, he explains how this shift has led to opportunistic infringement that favors downstream incumbents with the resources to fund extensive litigation at the expense of upstream innovators—a dynamic that is exemplified in the recent litigation between Sonos and Google.
  • Jonathan M. Barnett, The End of Patent Groupthink (Ctr. for the Prot. of Intell. Prop. Apr. 2020) | Description: In this policy brief, former CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett highlights some cracks that have emerged in the recent policy consensus that the U.S. patent system is “broken” and it is necessary to “fix” it. Policymakers have long operated on the basis of mostly unquestioned assumptions about the supposed explosion of low quality patents and the concomitant patent litigation that purportedly threaten the foundation of the innovation ecosystem. These assumptions have led to real-world policy actions that have weakened patent rights. But as Prof. Barnett discusses in the policy brief, that “groupthink” is now eroding as empirical evidence shows that the rhetoric doesn’t quite match up to the reality. This has translated into incremental but significant movements away from the patent-skeptical trajectory that has prevailed at the Supreme Court, the USPTO, and the federal antitrust agencies.

Policy Briefs & Issue Papers A to Z

Essays & Op-Eds

IPPI scholars play an active role in the intellectual property policy debate, writing numerous op-eds and essays about intellectual property rights and the technological, commercial, and creative innovation they facilitate. These essays and op-eds have been published in a wide variety of media sources.

Below are some selected highlights.

2025 Essays & Op-Eds

2024 Essays & Op-Eds

  • [Updates in progress]

2023 Essays & Op-Eds

  • [Updates in progress]

2022 Essays & Op-Eds

  • [Updates in progress]

2021 Essays & Op-Eds

2020 Essays & Op-Eds

2019 Essays & Op-Eds

2018 Essays & Op-Eds

2017 Essays & Op-Eds

2016 Essays & Op-Eds

2015 Essays & Op-Eds

2014 Essays & Op-Eds

2013 Essays & Op-Eds

2012 Essays & Op-Eds