Christopher Cotropia

Contact Information

Bey & Cotropia PLLC
213 Bayly Court
Richmond, VA  23229
804-404-2367
chris@beycotropia.com

Biography

Chris Cotropia is an expert in patent law and other areas of intellectual property law.  He provides consulting and expert services on numerous intellectual property issues.  He has also testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal Trade Commission, and the United States International Trade Commission on patent law issues.

He is an Austin Owen Fellow and Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, where he is also a member of the School’s Intellectual Property Institute.  He teaches intellectual property law, computer law, and property. He has authored numerous articles and book chapters in the areas of patent law and intellectual property law.

Chris clerked for the Honorable Alvin A. Schall of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He also practiced at the Washington, DC office of Fish & Richardson PC. Before joining the faculty at Richmond Law School, he was an associate professor of law at Tulane University School of Law where he was the C.J. Morrow Research Professor for the 2005-06 academic year in recognition of his productivity as a scholar.

Education

• J.D., University of Texas School of Law, Order of the Coif, Articles Editor, Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal
• Queen Mary & Westfield College – Centre for Commerical Legal Studies, Coursework in Internationl and Comparative Intellectual Property Law
  
• B.S., Computer Engineering and Electrical Engineering, Northwestern University, with Honors and Distinction, Member, Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu

Bar Admissions

• California
• District of Columbia
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• Virginia

Memberships

• American Association of Law Schools
• American Intellectual Property Law Association
• Federal Circuit Bar Association (Board Member)

Amicus Briefs

• Brief of Demand Progress as Interested Non-Party, U.S. v. Kim Dotcom, No. 1:12-cr-00003-LO (E.D. Va. June 2012) (Co-Author and Counsel of Record).
• Brief of Professor Christopher A. Cotropia as Amicus Curiae in Support of Eli Lilly’s Answers to the En Banc Questions, Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2008-1248 (Fed. Cir. en banc Nov. 18, 2009) (Author and Counsel of Record) (cited in resulting opinion).
• Brief of Business and Law Professors as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondent, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Oct. 16, 2006) (Co-Author and Counsel of Record).
• Brief of Professors John R. Allison, et. al. as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondents, MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 05-608 (U.S. July 26, 2006) (Co-Author).

Publications (available at http://ssrn.com/author=345316)

• Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 MINN. L. REV. ___ (forthcoming 2014) (co-authored with Jay Kesan and David Schwartz).
• Copyright’s Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation, 93 TEX. L. REV. __ (forthcoming 2014) (symposium – Steps Toward Evidence-Based IP) (co-authored with Jim Gibson).
• Is Patent Claim Interpretation Deference or Correction Driven?, 2014 BYU L. REV. __ (forthcoming 2014).
• The Dominance of Teams in the Production of Legal Knowledge, 124 YALE L.J. F. __ (forthcoming 2014) (co-authored with Lee Petherbridge).
• Predictability and KSR’s Fundamental Change to Nonobviousness in Patent Law, 19 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. ___ (forthcoming 2014).
• Patent Applications and the Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 23 FED. CIR. BAR J. 179 (2013) (co-authored with Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. and Ogden H. Webster).
• Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Implications for the Presumption of Validity 42 RESEARCH POLICY 944 (2013) (co-authored with Mark Lemley and Bhaven Sampat).
• What is the “Invention”?, 53 WM.& MARY L.REV. 1855 (2012).
• Conflict of Interest Issues in Patent Litigation, 1086 PLI/LIT 518 (2012).
• The Strength of the International Trade Commission as a Patent Venue, 19 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 1 (2011).
• Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit By Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 801 (2010) (symposium—The Federal Circuit as an Institution).
• The Upside of Intellectual Property’s Downside, 57 UCLA L.REV. 921 (2010) (coauthored with Jim Gibson).
• The Individual Inventor Motif in the Age of the Patent Troll, 12 YALE J. L. & TECH. 52 (2009), reprinted at 42 INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 3 (2010).
• The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law, 61 HASTINGS L.J. 65 (2009).
• Copying in Patent Law, 87 N. CAR. L. REV. 1421 (2009) (co-authored with Mark Lemley) (symposium—Frontiers of Empirical Patent Law Scholarship).
• The Unreasonableness of the Patent Office’s “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Standard, 37 AIPLA Q. J. 285 (2009) (co-authored with Dawn-Marie Bey) (peer reviewed).
• Modernizing Patent Law’s Inequitable Conduct Doctrine, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 723 (2009).
• Describing Patents as Real Options, 34 J. CORP. L. 1127 (2009) (symposium—Invention, Creation, and Public Policy).
• Compulsory Licensing Under TRIPS and the Supreme Court of the United States’s Decision in eBay v. MercExchange, in PATENT LAW AND THEORY: A HANDBOOK OF  CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH (Toshiko Takenaka ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., 2009).
• Internet, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (David S. Tanenhau ed., New York: MacMillian Reference USA/Thomson-Gale) (2008).
• Nonobviousness and the Federal Circuit: An Empirical Analysis of Recent Case Law, 82 NOTRE DAME L.REV. 911 (2007).
• Patent Law Viewed Through an Evidentiary Lens: The “Suggestion Test” as a Rule of Evidence, 2006 BYU L.REV. 1517.
• Nonobviousness as an Exercise in Gap Measuring, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH (P. Yu ed., Praeger Publishers) (2006).
• Observations on Recent Patent Cases: The Year in Review, 88 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF.SOC’Y 46 (2006) (invited submission—peer reviewed).
• Patent Claim Interpretation Methodologies and Their Claim Scope Paradigms, 47 WM. & MARY L.REV. 49 (2005).
• Patent Claim Interpretation and Information Costs, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 57 (2005) (symposium on Markman v. Westview Instruments).
• “After-Arising” Technologies and Tailoring Patent Scope, 61 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 151 (2005) (invited submission for issue on intellectual property).
• Counterclaims, the Well-Pleaded Complaint, and Federal Jurisdiction, 33 HOFSTRA L.REV. 1 (2004).
• “Arising Under” Jurisdiction and Uniformity in Patent Law, 9 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH.L.REV. 253 (2003), reprinted at 36 INTELL.PROP.L.REV. 209 (2004).
• Note, Post-Expiration Patent Injunctions, 7 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 105 (1998).

Presentations

• Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), at Annual Meeting, American Law and Economics Association, Chicago, IL, May 2014.
• Relative Gender Impact in the Production of Legal Knowledge, University of Richmond School of Law, April 2014.
• Defensive Patent Aggregators (Anti-Trolls), at IP Surprise!, New York Law School, April 2014.
• Are Patent Assertion Entities Responsible for the Rise in Patent Suits?, Federal Circuit Bar Association Webcast, February 2014.
• Copyright’s Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation, at Steps Toward Evidence-Based IP Symposium of the Texas Law Review, University of Texas School of Law, January 2014.
• Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) Under the Microscope, Licensing Executives Society, Austin, TX, January 2014.
• Patentable Subject Matter: Software and Business Methods, United States Patent and Trademark Office, January 2014.
• Ethical Conflicts in Intellectual Property Law, at the Greater Richmond Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, University of Richmond Law School, October 2013.
• Rising USPTO Prosecution Fees and Their Impact on Patent Attorneys and Patent Quality, at Workshop on Empirical Methods in Intellectual Property, Chicago-Kent College of Law, October 2013.
• Patent Exhaustion and Patent Licensing, at 25th Annual Virginia State Bar IP Seminar, Williamsburg, VA, October 2013.
• Significant Recent Developments: International Trade and FTA, at 2013 Federal Bar Association International Series, University of Toronto, September 2013.
• Copyright’s Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation, University of Richmond Law School, August 2013.
• Predictability as a Basis for Nonobviousness, at The Center for American and International Law, Dallas, Texas, November 2012.
• Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Implications for the Presumption of Validity, at Seventh Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, Stanford Law School, November 2012.
• Patent Conflicts of Interests, Practicing Law Institute, New York, New York, March 2012.
• Learning Theory and the Federal Circuit, at the American University Law Review Federal Circuit Symposium, American University School of Law, February 2012.
• Patent Conflicts of Interests, at the Thirteenth Annual Intellectual Property Law Symposium, University of Texas School of Law, February 2012.
• An Overview of the Prosecution and Litigation Landscape after Patent Reform, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, January 2012.
• Patent Remedies at the International Trade Commission: An Empirical Analysis of Kyocera, at the Inaugural Samsung-Stanford Conference on Patent Remedies, Stanford Law School, February 2011.
• Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Implications for the Presumption of Validity, at the Second Annual Research Roundtable on Empirical Studies of Patent Litigation, Northwestern University School of Law, November 2010.
• What is the Invention?, at Patent Scope Revisited: Merges & Nelson’s On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, September 2010.
• The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law, American University School of Law, October 2010.
• Panelist, Analyzing In re Bilski, Hot Topics in Patent Law, George Mason University School of Law, July 2010.
• Bilski v. Kappos: A First Look, before the Greater Richmond Intellectual Property Law Association, University of Richmond School of Law, July 2010.
• Panelist, Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lily: Examining the Written Requirement for Patentability, American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Teleconference Series, April 2010.
• Section 112 and Ariad v. Eli Lilly, North Carolina Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section Annual Meeting, Greensboro, NC, April 2010.
• ITC Activity Post-Kyocera, 24th Annual American Bar Association Intellectual Property LawConference, Washington, DC, April 2010.
• Section 112, the Written Description Requirement, and Ariad v. Eli Lilly, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, January 2010.
• The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law, George Washington University Law School, November, 2009.
• Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit By Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review at The Federal Circuit as an Institution, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, October, 2009.
• The Upside of Intellectual Property’s Downside, Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting, August 2009.
• The Individual Inventor Motif in the Age of the Patent Troll at Patents and Entrepreneurship in Business and Information Technologies, George Washington University Law School, June 2009.
• The Upside of Intellectual Property’s Downside, Virginia Junior Faculty Forum, April 2009.
• Panelist, Fulfilling the Patent System’s Public Notice Function, Federal Trade Commission, March 2009.
• Describing Patents as Real Options at Invention, Creation, and Public Policy, Iowa University Law School, February 2009.
• The Upside of Intellectual Property’s Downside, University of Washington Law School, February 2009.
• The Upside of Intellectual Property’s Downside, Seattle University Law School, February 2009.
• Rethinking the Patent System’s Early Filing Doctrine, University of Houston Law Center, January 2009.
• Rethinking the Patent System’s Early Filing Doctrine, Columbia Law School, January 2009.
• Panelist, The Limits of Abstract Patents in an Intangible Economy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, January 2009.
• Rethinking the Patent System’s Early Filing Doctrine, SMU Law School, October 2008.
• Inequitable Conduct: A Greatly Misunderstood Defense at the IP Law Review, New York, NY, October 2008.
• Practicing Before the USPTO and US Copyright Office: Ethical Issues at the American Intellectual Property Law Association—Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October 2008.
• Rethinking the Patent System’s Early Filing Doctrine at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference 2008, Stanford Law School, August 2008.
• Panelist, Top Ten Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Virginia State Bar, Virginia Beach, VA, June 2008.
• Commentator, Symposium on Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, University of Georgia School of Law, March 2008.
• Moderator, Are the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit on the Same Page? at the 23rd Annual American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Conference, Washington, DC, March 2008.
• Speaker, SmithKline Beecham v. Dudas: Challenging the Patent Office’s Continuations” Rule and the Suit’s Repercussions at the Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, February 2008.
• Impact of KSR on Patent Litigation and Prosecution at the 2008 Advanced Patent Law Institute, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, Virginia, January 2008.
• Rethinking the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine in Patent Law, at the 2007 Works-inProgress Intellectual Property Colloquium, American University Washington College of Law, October 2007.
• Nonobviousness at the USPTO After KSR, Motorola, Inc. Patent Department, September 2007.
• Inequitable Conduct and Patent Quality, Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”) Annual Meeting, New York, NY, September 2007.
• The “Obvious” and “Non-Obvious” Impacts of KSR v. Teleflex, Association of Corporate Counsel Intellectual Property Committee, May 2007.
• Testimony on “Process Patents” before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 2007.
• Moderator, Re-Writing Patent Law: The Supreme Court’s Decisions in MedImmune, KSR and Microsoft at the 22nd Annual American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Conference, Washington, DC, April 2007.
• Testimony on Public Interest before the United States International Trade Commission in Certain Baseband Processor Chip and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Washington, DC, March 2007.
• Intellectual Property Injunctions after Ebay before the Greater Richmond Intellectual Property Law Association, University of Richmond School of Law, March 2007.
• Reforming Patent Law’s Disclosure Requirements at Some Modest Proposals 3.0, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, February 2007.
• What is the Invention? at the 8th Annual Intellectual Property Symposium, University of Texas School of Law, February 2007.
• Fraud before the Trademark and Copyright Offices at the American Intellectual Property Law Association – 30th Mid-Winter Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana, January 2007.
• Obviousness at the 7th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, San Jose, California, November 2006.
• Obviousness at the 2006 Advanced Patent Law Institute, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, Virginia, November 2006.
• Panelist at What’s Ahead on Highway 101, George Washington University Law School and Oracle Corporation, Washington, DC, November 2006.
• Injunctions after eBay at Patent Policy in the Supreme Court and Congress, The Berkeley Center for Law and Technology—Boalt Hall School of Law, UC Berkeley and The High Technology Law Institute—Santa Clara University School of Law, October 2006.
• Recent Developments in Nonobviousness, IP Innovations Class sponsored by Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, September 2006.
• Computer Software and Patent Law at the 19th Annual Technology and Computer Law Institute, Austin, Texas, June 2006.
• The “Suggestion Test” as a Rule of Evidence in Patent Law at the Chicago Intellectual Property Colloquium, Chicago-Kent College of Law and Loyola University Chicago School of Law, February 2006.
• Nonobviousness, the Federal Circuit, and the “Suggestion Test”: A Study of Recent Case Law at the 2005 Works-in-Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium, Washington University School of Law and St. Louis University Law School, October 2005.
• Obviousness at the 10th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, Austin, Texas, October 2005.
• Patent Year in Review at the American Intellectual Property Law Association—Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, October 2005.
• Patent Claim Interpretation and Information Costs at the Tenth Annual Lewis & Clark Law School Fall Business Law Forum—Markman v. Westview Instruments: Lessons from a Decade of Experience, Lewis & Clark Law School, October 2004.
• “After-Arising” Technologies and Patent Scope at the 2004 Works-in-Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium, Boston University School of Law, September 2004.
• Claim Interpretation and the Patent Disclosure at the Intellectual Property and Communications Law Scholars Roundtable, Michigan State University School of Law, February 2004.
• Claim Interpretation and the Patent Disclosure at the 2003 Works-in-Progress Intellectual Property Colloquium, Tulane University School of Law, October 2003.
• The Appellate Jurisdiction for Patent Litigation at the 2003 High Technology Protection Summit, University of Washington School of Law Center for Advanced Study & Research on Intellectual Property, July 2003.
• The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit at the 7th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, Austin, Texas, October 2002 and at the 3rd Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, San Jose, California, November 2002.