Lisa L. Ouellette
banner
patentscholar.bsky.social
Lisa L. Ouellette
@patentscholar.bsky.social

Prof at @StanfordLaw.bsky.social, Senior Fellow at @SIEPR.bsky.social, physics PhD. Researching IP & innovation. Coauthor of free patent casebook: patentcasebook.org

Economics 40%
Business 31%
Harvey.AI is courting law schools like Westlaw/Lexis once did, but do we really need it? After a demo, my verdict: it's ChatGPT in a black turtleneck. Good for firms needing secure doc review & RAG, but law students can already do most of this with existing tools. matthewsag.com/do-law-schoo...
Do law schools need Harvey.AI? – Matthew Sag
matthewsag.com

New Patently-O post with Jonathan Masur on why the Federal Circuit should explicitly clarify that private sales—ones that don't lead to public use or other prior art—are prior art against the seller but not third parties: patentlyo.com/patent/2025/...
Guest Post by Profs. Masur & Larrimore Ouellette: Private Third-Party Sales as Prior Art
Guest post by Professors Jonathan S. Masur (UChicago Law) and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette (Stanford Law). In our 2024 Stanford Law Review article, “Real-World Prior …
patentlyo.com

Press on Jonathan Masur's and my amicus brief from @law360.bsky.social & @bloomberglaw.com www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglaw...
The Federal Circuit should revive an insulation product maker's patent infringement lawsuit against a competitor, according to a pair of legal scholars who say third-party sales of a product by themselves can't block inventors from patenting their creations. www.law360.com/artic...
The Federal Circuit should revive an insulation product maker's patent infringement lawsuit against a competitor, according to a pair of legal scholars who say third-party sales of a product by themselves can't block inventors from patenting their creations. www.law360.com/artic...

For the longer version of these arguments, see our 2024 @stanlrev.bsky.social article "Real-World Prior Art": www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
Real-World Prior Art | Stanford Law Review
www.stanfordlawreview.org

We also explain why this rule aligns the on-sale bar with its purpose, why it is consistent with longstanding treatment of secret commercial use as party-specific, and why it incentivizes public disclosures. We hope the Fed. Cir. takes this opportunity to clarify this important area of doctrine!

A simple example: Suppose A makes a private sale, then B files for a patent, then A files for a patent. If the on-sale bar were NOT party-specific, NEITHER inventor gets a patent: A's sale would bar B but wouldn't protect A under 102(b)(1)(B) (b/c not a public disclosure), so B's filing would bar A.

Thank you @prmalone.bsky.social, Nina Srejovic & fantastic @law.stanford.edu Juelsgaard Clinic students Jina Zhou and Yiran (Isabella) Yang for filing this amicus brief on Jonathan Masur's & my behalf, explaining why a private third-party sale isn't prior art against an unrelated inventor:
#25 in Cellulose Material Solutions, LLC v. SC Marketing Group, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 25-2000) – CourtListener.com
MODIFIED ENTRY: AMICUS BRIEF FILED by Jonathan Masur and Lisa L. Ouellette, Esq.. Service: 10/28/2025 by email. [1124194]--[Edited 10/29/2025 by GWK - Reason: compliance review complete] [Phillip Malo...
storage.courtlistener.com
Jonathan Masur and @patentscholar.bsky.social unravel patent law’s “disclosure puzzles”—the doctrines that demand inventors reveal enough to teach the public while still preserving the value of their inventions.
My paper with @patentscholar.bsky.social on how AI increases plagiarism risk in student and academic writing, what law should do about it (nothing), and what schools should do about it (quite a bit) is now published in the University of Chicago Law Review
lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archi...
Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI | The University of Chicago Law Review
Critics of generative AI often describe it as a “plagiarism machine.” They may be right, though not in the sense they mean. With rare exceptions, generative AI doesn’t just copy someone else’s creativ...
lawreview.uchicago.edu
FDA has updated their CBER/CDER net hiring data for FY 2025. Although both Centers grew in FY2023 and FY2024, in FY2025 they've lost ~16-18% (respectively) of staff, over a thousand people at CDER alone. www.fda.gov/industry/fda...
Employees inside the FDA and outside experts said they were worried the U.S. is headed toward a new era of drug regulation: one where political decisions lead, and evidence follows
www.statnews.com/2025/10/14/f...
Inside FDA, career staffers describe how political pressure is influencing their work
Current and former FDA staff said the level of involvement of political officials in nitty-gritty regulatory matters is unprecedented.
www.statnews.com
Excellent question. I reached out the the Office to ask about file wrapper access and they sent me here: data.uspto.gov/patent-file-...

It's much less user-friendly than Patent Center was and the UI is *terrible*, so it's not a great replacement.
The Open Data Portal (ODP) is USPTO's data platform that empowers you to discover and easily extract USPTO data in one place for free.
data.uspto.gov

Also, these are not the only types of users who might want to access Patent Center! Understanding a patent's prosecution history is relevant for businesses, academics, lawyers who aren't registered with the USPTO, etc.

Is there any legitimate reason that limiting Patent Center access to verified users helps “fraud protection”? This is a problem for those of us who want to teach our students how to read a patent’s prosecution history. What is the fraud risk in reading patent data? www.uspto.gov/about-us/new...
USPTO implementing additional security measures for Patent Center
Effective September 11, 2025, identity verification will be required for all Patent Center users; guest and unregistered users will no longer be able to access Patent Center.
www.uspto.gov
I submitted written testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act

drive.google.com/file/d/1SlL9...
Comments on the Patent Eligibility Reform Act.pdf
drive.google.com

Thanks to David Zimmer for work on Jonathan Masur’s & my amicus brief in support of cert in MSN v. Novartis, drawing on our “Disclosure Puzzles in Patent Law” article to explain why the Fed Cir’s approach to disclosure for after-arising technologies is incoherent www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Disclosure Puzzles in Patent Law | The University of Chicago Law Review
Since its inception, patent law has required that inventors publicly disclose information about their inventions in exchange for receiving patent rights. This foundational requirement is policed throu...
lawreview.uchicago.edu
New research by Pierre Azoulay, Danielle Li, Bhaven Sampat and me.

Earlier this year, the President’s budget proposed a 40% cut to the budget of the NIH. This motivated us to ask: what if the NIH had been 40% smaller?
This is bonkers. FDA is going to change leucovorin's label based on a lit review with data on 40 patients w/ cerebral folate deficiency and comparisons to "known natural history."

www.statnews.com/2025/09/22/f...
FDA brings back GSK's leucovorin drug that RFK Jr. touted as autism treatment
The Trump administration is touting leucovorin as a treatment for autism.
www.statnews.com
In this post I explain why the suspension of Kimmel’s show looks like a blatant 1A violation, as all NINE members of SCOTUS last year made clear.... but also why courts may not be able to do much about it (and yet Kimmel should still sue!) blog.dividedargument.com/p/did-brenda...
Did Brendan Carr Violate the First Amendment? And Can Anything Be Done?
the constitutional law of jawboning
blog.dividedargument.com

Looking forward to delivering the academic spotlight at the @law.stanford.edu Silicon Valley IP Forum on Oct. 3. Free registration here: conferences.law.stanford.edu/siliconvalle...
Home - Silicon Valley IP Forum 2025
Silicon Valley IP Forum aims to foster discussion and collaboration among IP professionals in the Silicon Valley area (and beyond).  The conference will feature insightful discussions among judges, la...
conferences.law.stanford.edu
Heard. See @patentscholar.bsky.social 's "Classic Patent Scholarship" project, writtendescription.blogspot.com/p/classic-sc..., which builds on my "Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law," available on SSRN. Newton, Hooke, OTSOG, and all that.
Classic Patent Scholarship
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette's Patent & IP Blog, Reviewing Recent Scholarship on Patent Law, IP Theory, and Innovation
writtendescription.blogspot.com
TL;DR: 5 justices say Trump doesn't have to immediately restore the funding, but 5 *also* signal that the underlying directives are unlawful.

That sends a fairly strong (if mixed) message that Trump will lose these cases *eventually,* but only once they're brought in the Court of Federal Claims.
Splitting 5-4 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent), #SCOTUS grants *partial* stay to Trump administration in NIH funding case; holds that challenges to grant terminations (but *not* the underlying guidance) need to be filed in the Court of Federal Claims:
www.supremecourt.gov
JUST IN: 9th Circuit panel refuses Trump administration bid to lift order requiring it to reinstate University of California grants canceled under Trump DEI orders. 3-0. Judges Paez (Clinton), Christen (Obama), Desai (Biden). Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
UCResearcherStayCA9082125
www.documentcloud.org

Reposted by Mark A. Lemley

New article with @marklemley.bsky.social on how genAI facilitates academic plagiarism, why this shouldn't become a copyright/legal problem, and what universities should do about it (forthcoming in U Chi L Rev Online): papers.ssrn.com/abstract=539...

Reposted by Jennifer M. Urban

The @statnews.com story suggests they are thinking of march-in rights, but that would only allow them to grant additional licenses after determining that certain statutory criteria are met, which Harvard could appeal to the Court of Federal Claims (see 35 USC 203) www.statnews.com/2025/08/08/h...
Trump administration launches investigation into Harvard’s federally funded research patents
The Trump administration escalates its fight with Harvard, beginning the "march-in" process involving patent ownership.
www.statnews.com
This threat to "take over" Harvard's patents is bewildering—seems like yet another example of using a tenuous legal threat to retaliate against universities for not complying with unrelated demands. I'm quoted in this WSJ story (gift link):
Trump Administration Threatens to Take Over Harvard’s Patents
The move is the latest escalation in the White House’s battle with the Ivy League school.
www.wsj.com
I chased this all day:

UCLA research grants suspended after Trump administration faulted campus for antisemitism

calmatters.org/education/hi...
UCLA research grants suspended after Trump administration faulted campus for antisemitism
The Justice Department issued UCLA a notice of violation for not responding “adequately” to complaints about antisemitism.
calmatters.org
The USPTO's design patent search tool is also available to law firms and corporations through Clarivate (for a fee, presumably). I'm not sure how I feel about the gov't using AI that is paywalled for the private sector. But here we are. clarivate.com/intellectual...