• Menu 
    • HLR Issues
      • 50:4 – Frankel Lecture 2012
      • 50:3 – Winter 2012
      • 50:2 – Symposium 2012
      • 50:1 – Fall 2012
      • 49:2 – Spring 2012
      • 49:1 – Frankel Lecture 2011
      • 48:5 – Winter 2012
      • 48:4 – Symposium 2011
      • 48:3 – Fall 2011
      • 48:2 – Spring 2011
      • 48:1 – Frankel Lecture 2010
      • 47:5 – Winter 2011
      • 47:4 – Symposium 2010
      • 47:3 – Fall 2010
      • 47:2 – Spring 2010
      • 47:1 – Frankel Lecture 2009
      • 46:5 – Spring 2010
      • 46:4 – Symposium 2009
      • 46:3 – Fall 2009
      • 46:2 – Summer 2009
      • 46:1 – Frankel Lecture 2008
    • Subscriptions
    • Submissions
      • Submissions Procedures
      • Expedited Submissions
      • Expedited Submission Form
      • HLRe Submissions
    • Events
      • The Frankel Lecture
      • IPIL Symposium
      • Community Volunteer Day
    • Alumni Services
      • Alumni Directory
      • Make A Donation
      • Summer Improvement Fund
      • Alumni Newsletter
    • About
      • Contact Us
      • Membership
      • Write-On Competition
      • Mastheads
      • Board of Directors
        • Board Minutes and Reports
      • Mission Statement
      • Awards
      • Resume Bank
        • Resume Files
    • HLRe: Off the Record
      • About HLRe: Off the Record
      • Article Submission
      • Current Features
      • HLRe Archive

    Volume 39, Number 3: Symposium 2002

    Prologue

    • Paul M. Janicke, The 2002 Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Symposium, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 567 (2002).

    Articles

    • John R. Thomas, Liberty and Property in the Patent Law, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 569 (2002).
    • Toshiko Takenaka, Rethinking the United States First-to-Invent Principle from a Comparative Law Perspective: A Proposal to Restructure § 102 Novelty and Priority Provisions, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 621 (2002).
    • Craig Allen Nard, Toward a Cautious Approach to Obeisance: The Role of Scholarship in Federal Circuit Patent Law Jurisprudence, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 667 (2002).
    • Paul M. Janicke, “Maybe We Shouldn’t Arbitrate”: Some Aspects of the Risk/Benefit Calculus of Agreeing to Binding Arbitration of Patent Disputes, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 693 (2002).
    • Mark D. Janis & Jay P. Kesan, U.S. Plant Variety Protection: Sound and Fury . . . ?, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 727 (2002).

    Essay

    • Kimberly A. Moore, Juries, Patent Cases, & a Lack of Transparency, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 779 (2002).

    Notes

    • Joan E. Beckner, Patent Infringement by Component Export: Waymark Corp. v. Porta Systems Corp. and the Extraterritorial Effect of U.S. Patent Law, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 803 (2002).
    • Kristina G. Van Arsdel, Burdine v. Johnson: The Fifth Circuit Wakes Up, but the Supreme Court Refuses to Put the Sleeping Attorney Standard to Rest, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 835 (2002).
    Copyright © Houston Law Review, Houston Law Foundation | Houston Law Review Member Console