Bio


Mark Lemley is the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology. He teaches intellectual property, computer and internet law, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, and remedies. He is the author of seven books (all in multiple editions) and 167 articles on these and related subjects, including the two-volume treatise IP and Antitrust. His works have been cited more than 260 times by courts, including 15 times by the United States Supreme Court, and more than 16,000 times in books and law review articles, making him the most-cited scholar in IP law, one of the four most cited legal scholars in any field in the last five years, and one of the five most cited legal scholars of all time. He has published 9 of the 100 most-cited law review articles of the last twenty years, more than any other scholar, and an empirical study named him the most relevant law professor in the country. His articles have appeared in 23 of the top 25 law reviews, in top economic journals such as the American Economic Review and the Review of Economics and Statistics, and in multiple peer-reviewed and specialty journals. They have been reprinted throughout the world, and translated into Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Italian, and Danish. He has taught IP law to federal and state judges at numerous Federal Judicial Center and ABA programs, has testified seven times before Congress, and has filed more than 50 amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court, and the federal circuit courts.
Mark is a founding partner of Durie Tangri LLP. He litigates and counsels clients in all areas of intellectual property, antitrust, and internet law. He has argued 26 federal appellate cases and numerous district court cases as well as before the California Supreme Court. He has participated in more than three dozen cases in the United States Supreme Court as counsel or amici. His client base is diverse, including Genentech, Dykes on Bikes, artists, and nearly every significant Internet company.
Mark is a founder of Lex Machina, Inc., a startup company that provides litigation data and analytics to law firms, companies, courts, and policymakers. Lex Machina was acquired by Lexis in December 2015.
Mark has been named California Lawyer's Attorney of the Year twice. He received the California State Bar’s inaugural IP Vanguard Award. In 2017 he received the P.J. Federico Award from the Patent and Trademark Office Society. He has been named a Young Global Leader by the Davos World Economic Forum and Berkeley Law School’s Young Alumnus of the Year (back when he was young). He has been recognized as one of the top 50 litigators in the country under 45 and one of the 25 most influential people in IP by American Lawyer, one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the nation by the National Law Journal, and one of the 10 most admired attorneys in IP by IP360. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Law Institute and the IP Hall of Fame.
Mark clerked for Judge Dorothy Nelson on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and has practiced law in Silicon Valley with Brown & Bain and with Fish & Richardson and in San Francisco with Keker & Van Nest. Until January 2000, he was the Marrs McLean Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law, and until June 2004 he was the Elizabeth Josselyn Boalt Professor of Law at the Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley. In his spare time, Mark enjoys cooking, travel, yoga, and feeding his addiction to video games (at this writing, Shadow of the Tomb Raider).

Program Affiliations


  • Symbolic Systems Program

Current Research and Scholarly Interests


intellectual property, Internet, and antitrust law; law and AI/robotics

Stanford Advisees


  • Doctoral Dissertation Advisor (AC)
    Sergei Hovyadinov
  • Master's Program Advisor
    Cody Maly

All Publications


  • Remedies for Robots UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Casey, B. 2019; 86 (5): 1311–96
  • THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY: PRIVACY REIMAGINED FOR A PUBLIC WORLD (Book Review) MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Book Review Authored by: Lemley, M. A. 2019; 117 (6): 1153–78
  • The Patent Enforcement Iceberg TEXAS LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Richardson, K., Oliver, E. 2019; 97 (4): 801–33
  • HOW ESSENTIAL ARE STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS? CORNELL LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Simcoe, T. 2019; 104 (2): 607–42
  • The Sound and Fury of Patent Activity MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Feldman, R. C., Lemley, M. A. 2019; 103 (4): 1793–1877
  • INTELLIGENT DESIGN DUKE LAW JOURNAL Buccafusco, C., Lemley, M. A., Masur, J. S. 2018; 68 (1): 75–139
  • LAW, VIRTUAL REALITY, AND AUGMENTED REALITY UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Volokh, E. 2018; 166 (5): 1051–1138
  • Can a Court Change the Law by Saying Nothing? VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW Gugliuzza, P. R., Lemley, M. A. 2018; 71 (3): 765–820
  • IS PATENT ENFORCEMENT EFFICIENT? BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Feldman, R. 2018; 98 (2): 649–67
  • FUNCTIONALITY SCREENS VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW Buccafusco, C., Lemley, M. A. 2017; 103 (7): 1293–1378
  • Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF ANTITRUST, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND HIGH TECH Lemley, M. A., McKenna, M. P., Blair, R. D., Sokol, D. D. 2017: 183–203
  • Patent Licensing, Technology Transfer, and Innovation AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Feldman, R. 2016; 106 (5): 188-192
  • READY FOR PATENTING BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2016; 96 (3): 1171-1195
  • If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em? How Sitting by Designation Affects Judicial Behavior TEXAS LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Miller, S. P. 2016; 94 (3): 451-484
  • Do Patent Licensing Demands Mean Innovation? IOWA LAW REVIEW Feldman, R., Lemley, M. A. 2015; 101 (1): 137-189
  • Antitrust Arbitration and Illinois Brick IOWA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Leslie, C. R. 2015; 100 (5): 2115-2133
  • Our Divided Patent System UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Schwartz, D. L. 2015; 82 (3): 1073-1154
  • Faith-Based Intellectual Property UCLA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2015; 62 (5): 1328-1346
  • IP IN A WORLD WITHOUT SCARCITY NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2015; 90 (2): 460-515
  • Does "Public Use" Mean the Same Thing It Did Last Year? TEXAS LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2015; 93 (5): 1119-1136
  • ANTITRUST ARBITRATION AND MERGER APPROVAL NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Leslie, C. R. 2015; 110 (1): 1-62
  • Understanding the Realities of Modern Patent Litigation TEXAS LAW REVIEW Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Schwartz, D. L. 2014; 92 (7): 1769-1801
  • THE AUDIENCE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Fromer, J. C., Lemley, M. A. 2014; 112 (7): 1251-1304
  • DOES FAMILIARITY BREED CONTEMPT AMONG JUDGES DECIDING PATENT CASES? STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Li, S., Urban, J. M. 2014; 66 (5): 1121-1157
  • WHY DO JURIES DECIDE IF PATENTS ARE VALID? VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2013; 99 (8): 1673-1736
  • MISSING THE FOREST FOR THE TROLLS COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Melamed, A. D. 2013; 113 (8): 2117-2190
  • Do applicant patent citations matter? RESEARCH POLICY Cotropia, C. A., Lemley, M. A., Sampat, B. 2013; 42 (4): 844-854
  • SOFTWARE PATENTS AND THE RETURN OF FUNCTIONAL CLAIMING WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2013: 905-964
  • The Fractioning of Patent Law Symposium on the Connection between Intellectual Property and the Common Law Lemley, M. A. CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS. 2013: 504–513
  • THE REGULATORY TURN IN IP HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY Lemley, M. A. 2013; 36 (1): 109-115
  • PATENT HOLDUP, THE ITC, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST CORNELL LAW REVIEW Chien, C. V., Lemley, M. A. 2012; 98 (1): 1-45
  • EXAMINER CHARACTERISTICS AND PATENT OFFICE OUTCOMES REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS Lemley, M. A., Sampat, B. 2012; 94 (3): 817-827
  • Is Pepsi Really a Substitute for Coke? Market Definition in Antitrust and IP GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL Lemley, M. A., McKenna, M. P. 2012; 100 (6): 2055-2117
  • Contracting Around Liability Rules CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2012; 100 (2): 463-486
  • THE MYTH OF THE SOLE INVENTOR MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2012; 110 (5): 709-760
  • POINT OF NOVELTY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2011; 105 (3): 1253-1280
  • LIFE AFTER BILSKI STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Risch, M., Sichelman, T., Wagner, R. P. 2011; 63 (6): 1315-1347
  • Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Walker, J. 2011; 99 (3): 677-712
  • Who Chooses Open-Source Software? UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Shafir, Z. 2011; 78 (1): 139-164
  • EARNING EXCLUSIVITY: GENERIC DRUG INCENTIVES AND THE HATCH-WAXMAN ACT ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL Hemphill, C. S., Lemley, M. A. 2011; 77 (3): 947-989
  • The surprising virtues of treating trade secrets as IP rights Workshop on Trade Secrecy/Conference of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy Lemley, M. A. EDWARD ELGAR PUBLISHING LTD. 2011: 109–139
  • OWNING MARK(ET)S MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., McKenna, M. P. 2010; 109 (2): 137-189
  • OUR BIZARRE SYSTEM FOR PROVING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT JOURNAL OF THE COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF THE USA Lemley, M. A. 2010; 57 (4): 719-742
  • IRRELEVANT CONFUSION STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., McKenna, M. 2010; 62 (2): 413-454
  • EXTREME VALUE OR TROLLS ON TOP? THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MOST-LITIGATED PATENTS UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Walker, J. 2009; 158 (1): 1-37
  • FENCE POSTS OR SIGN POSTS? RETHINKING PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW Burk, D. L., Lemley, M. A. 2009; 157 (6): 1743-1799
  • Antitrust Law and Regulatory Gaming TEXAS LAW REVIEW Dogan, S. L., Lemley, M. A. 2009; 87 (4): 685-729
  • THE SURPRISING VIRTUES OF TREATING TRADE SECRETS AS IP RIGHTS STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2008; 61 (2): 311-353
  • Categorical analysis in antitrust jurisprudence IOWA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Leslie, C. R. 2008; 93 (4): 1207-1270
  • Rethinking patent law's presumption of validity STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lichtman, D., Lemley, M. A. 2007; 60 (1): 45-72
  • Grounding trademark law through trademark use IOWA LAW REVIEW Dogan, S. L., Lemley, M. A. 2007; 92 (5): 1669-1701
  • Patent holdup and royalty stacking TEXAS LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Shapiro, C. 2007; 85 (7): 1991-2049
  • Should patent infringement require proof of copying? MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2007; 105 (7): 1525-1536
  • Should property or liability rules govern information? TEXAS LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Weiser, P. J. 2007; 85 (4): 783-841
  • The (unnoticed) demise of the doctrine of equivalents STANFORD LAW REVIEW Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A. 2007; 59 (4): 955-984
  • Terms of use MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2006; 91 (2): 459-483
  • UNILATERAL REFUSALS TO LICENSE JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW & ECONOMICS Hovenkamp, H., Janis, M. D., Lemley, M. A. 2006; 2 (1): 1-42
  • What the right of publicity can learn from trademark law STANFORD LAW REVIEW Dogan, S. L., Lemley, M. A. 2006; 58 (4): 1161-1220
  • Patenting nanotechnology STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2005; 58 (2): 601-630

    Abstract

    Universities and companies are rushing to the patent office in record numbers to patent nanotechnology inventions. This rush to the patent office is so significant that many law firms have established nanotechnology practice groups and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now created a new technology class designed to track nanotechnology products. Three big differences between the emerging science of nanotechnology and other inventions make the role of patents more significant in this arena than elsewhere. First, this is almost the first new field in a century in which the basic ideas are being patented at the outset. In many of the most important fields of invention over the past century--computer hardware, software, the Internet, even biotechnology--the basic building blocks of the field were either unpatented or the patents were made available to all users by government regulation. In others, patents were delayed by interferences for so long that the industry developed free from their influence. In nanotechnology, by contrast, companies and universities alike are patenting early and often. A second factor distinguishing nanotechnology is its unique cross-industry structure. Unlike other new industries, in which the patentees are largely actual or at least potential participants in the market, a significant number of nanotechnology patentees will own rights not just in the industry in which they participate, but in other industries as well. This overlap may significantly affect their incentives to license the patents. Finally, a large number of the basic nanotechnology patents have been issued to universities, which have become far more active in patenting in the last twenty-five years. While universities have no direct incentive to restrict competition, their interests may or may not align with the optimal implementation of building-block nanotechnology inventions. The result is a nascent market in which a patent thicket is in theory a serious risk. Whether it will prove a problem in practice depends in large part on how efficient the licensing market turns out to be.

    View details for Web of Science ID 000234233000005

    View details for PubMedID 16395838

  • Probabilistic patents JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES Lemley, M. A., Shapiro, C. 2005; 19 (2): 75-98
  • Property, intellectual property, and free riding TEXAS LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A. 2005; 83 (4): 1031-1075
  • Reducing digital copyright infringement without restricting innovation STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Reese, R. A. 2004; 56 (6): 1345-1434
  • Valuable patents GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A., Trunkey, R. D. 2004; 92 (3): 435-479
  • Balancing ease and accuracy in assessing pharmaceutical exclusion payments MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW HOVENKAMP, H., Janis, M. D., Lemley, M. A. 2004; 88 (3): 712-721
  • Ending abuse of patent continuations BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Moore, K. A. 2004; 84 (1): 63-?
  • Policy levers in patent law VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW Burk, D. L., Lemley, M. A. 2003; 89 (7): 1575-1696
  • Are the US patent priority rules really necessary? HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL Lemley, M. A., Chien, C. V. 2003; 54 (5): 1299-1333
  • Anticompetitive settlement of intellectual property disputes MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW HOVENKAMP, H., Janis, M., Lemley, M. A. 2003; 87 (6): 1719-1766
  • Biotechnology's uncertainty principle PERSPECTIVES ON PROPERTIES OF THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT Burk, D. L., Lemley, M. A. 2003; 50: 305-353

    View details for Web of Science ID 000237631600016

    View details for PubMedID 14714698

  • The growing complexity of the United States patent system BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A. 2002; 82 (1): 77-144
  • The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the Internet in the broadband era UCLA LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., Lessig, L. 2001; 48 (4): 925-972
  • Who's patenting what? An empirical exploration of patent prosecution Conference on Taking Stock: the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Rights Allison, J. R., Lemley, M. A. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW. 2000: 2099–2174
  • Private property Conference on Cyberspace and Privacy - A New Legal Paradigm Lemley, M. A. STANFORD UNIV, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL. 2000: 1545–57
  • Encouraging software reuse STANFORD LAW REVIEW Lemley, M. A., OBRIEN, D. W. 1997; 49 (2): 255-304