US News & World Report has released its updated rankings of intellectual property (IP) programs for 2011. The ranking is created by polling a subset of law professors who teach at least one intellectual property law course. The professors then list up to fifteen programs with good IP programs. Those "votes" are then used to create a ranking. Of course, most IP professors are not patent law professors.
Despite problems with the voting procedure, it is clear that every program on this list has an excellent IP program. And, although the list is not a "patent law program" list, all of the listed law schools employ at least one full-time faculty member whose primary teaching and research interest is patent law. Likewise, although you may quibble about individual rankings, there is no question that Berkeley's program deserves to be very highly ranked.
The US News list:
Rank |
Law School |
1. |
University of California–Berkeley |
2. |
Stanford University |
3. |
George Washington University |
4. |
Boston University |
5. |
New York University |
6. |
Columbia University |
7. |
University of Michigan |
8. |
University of Houston |
9. |
Duke University |
Franklin Pierce Law Center |
Three schools were dropped from this year's USNews top-ten: Santa Clara University; Yeshiva University (Cardozo), and Chicago-Kent (IIT). These three schools all have strong patent law programs and have recently hired additional new patent-focused faculty members. Other schools with hefty patent-focused programs did not make the list. These include schools like George Mason, John Marshall, Suffolk, William Mitchell, etc. (See curriculum ranking below).
Boston University, Michigan, and Duke were all added to the USNews list this year, although each had previously been on the list at some point during the past decade.
Patently-O Rankings: I have redone my list of "the top thirty law school patent programs" based solely on the number of Patently-O visits received from the associated university in the past year. There are many problems with this "study." In fact, at first glance, I would tend to take this ranking as a complete joke except for the fact that it is probably at least as good as the US News IP Specialty ranking. Perhaps six junk-science ratings are better than one. Some of the problems with my ranking include: Many schools may not use their name in their IP address — making them lose their ranking. This appears to be true of Franklin Pierce Law Center (soon to be University of New Hampshire Law School). Larger schools naturally perform better because the scores are not corrected according to the number of students. Likewise, the measure that I used allows for a few intense users to change the result. Thus, I placed an asterisk beside the University of Missouri because my own visits to Patently-O likely altered the results. Schools where students (and professors) primarily study away from campus building may also rank relatively lower. Finally, many of the visits to Patently-O may come from other departments – such as the Technology Transfer and corporate counsel – rather than the law schools.
Rank |
School |
Relative Score (Based on Visits from School Domain to Patently-O) |
1 |
George Washington University |
100% |
2 |
Columbia University, University of Missouri* |
65% |
4 |
Santa Clara University |
60% |
5 |
Stanford University |
55% |
6 |
University of Texas, University of California Berkeley |
45% |
8 |
Duke University, Harvard University, University of Wisconsin-Madison |
40% |
11 |
New York University, University of Virginia, Boston University, George Mason University, University of San Diego, Georgetown University, Cornell University |
35% |
18 |
Ohio State University, Indiana University (Bloomington), Washington University |
30% |
21 |
University of Pittsburgh, John Marshall Law School, University of Minnesota, University of Washington |
25% |
25 |
University of Illinois, Northwestern University, Suffolk University, Fordham University, University of Maryland. University of Connecticut, Rutgers University, University of Arkansas |
20% |
GWU tops this year's list as it did in my 2010 ranking. Overall, the schools in the top-ten have been relatively stable. Richmond fell off the list; Berkeley, Duke, and Wisconsin moved into the top-ten.
To add an additional layer of ranking, remember that almost 20,000 individuals access Patently-O through the free daily e-mail service. The following list ranks law school's according to the number of Patently-O e-mail subscribers. In addition to the biases mentioned above, we may have an additional bias if subscribers from some schools tend to use personal e-mail account (such as gmail) instead of the university account.
Rank |
School |
Relative Score (Based on the Number of Patently-O E-Mail Subscribers from School Domain) |
1. |
Franklin Pierce Law Center (University of New Hampshire Law School) |
100% |
2. |
University of Michigan |
60% |
3. |
Harvard University, Stanford University |
45% |
5. |
George Washington University, Columbia University, University of California Berkeley, Chicago Kent Law School |
40% |
9. |
Case Western Reserve University, University of Utah, Washington University, Elon University, Michigan State University |
35% |
14. |
New York Law School, University of Washington, New York University, St. Louis University, University of Chicago, University of Denver, Yale University |
25% |
Franklin Pierce again tops this list (as it did in 2009). Harvard moved dramatically upward in the ranking.
Reputation Ranking of Patent Law Faculty: Part of the "reputation" of an IP program is based on the scholarship of its faculty. To create a ranking of faculty-member patent-law reputation, I searched for the number of law review citations associated with each IP-professor using the Westlaw JLR database. To ensure that the citations focused on patent-law reputation, the search looked for articles that somehow related to patent law. It takes some time for citations to begin to build-up, so it is not surprising that all of the professors on this list have been teaching for at least ten years.
Citation Rank |
Faculty Name |
School |
|
1 |
Mark |
Lemley |
Stanford University |
2 |
Robert |
Merges |
University of California, Berkeley |
3 |
Rebecca |
Eisenberg |
University of Michigan |
4 |
Dan |
Burk |
University of California, Irvine |
5 |
Edmund |
Kitch |
University of Virginia |
6 |
Rochelle |
Dreyfuss |
New York University |
7 |
Paul |
Goldstein |
Stanford University |
8 |
Pamela |
Samuelson |
University of California, Berkeley |
9 |
Richard |
Posner |
University of Chicago |
10 |
John |
Duffy |
George Washington University |
11 |
Janice |
Mueller |
University of Pittsburgh |
12 |
Arti |
Rai |
Duke University |
13 |
Martin |
Adelman |
George Washington University |
14 |
Julie |
Cohen |
Georgetown University |
15 |
Maureen |
O'Rourke |
Boston University |
16 |
A.S. |
Oddi |
University of Akron |
17 |
Gerald |
Mossinghoff |
George Washington University |
18 |
Polk |
Wagner |
University of Pennsylvania |
19 |
Michael |
Meurer |
Boston University |
20 |
Louis |
Kaplow |
Harvard University |
21 |
Mark |
Janis |
Indiana University |
22 |
Lawrence |
Lessig |
Harvard University |
23 |
William |
Landes |
University of Chicago |
24 |
James |
Bessen |
Boston University |
If I had included Federal Circuit Judges in this listing, Judges Moore would jump into the top-ten. Likewise, if Donald Chisum was still teaching, he would be the clear #1. Four GWU faculty members are listed in the top-25 and BU have three ranked faculty members. Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and Chicago all had two.
IP Law Journal Ranking: Many law schools have created IP-focused law journals. Using data collected by the Washington & Lee Law Library, I created the following ranking of student-edited IP Law Journals. The ranking is based on how often articles published in each journal are cited in other journals or court cases. I only included journals with titles that include the terms "Intellectual property", "patent", or "technology." Thus, the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts is not included in this list.
Rank |
School |
Journal |
Relative Rank |
1 |
Harvard University |
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology |
100 |
2 |
University of California, Berkeley |
Berkeley Technology Law Journal |
69 |
3 |
University of Michigan |
Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review |
54.6 |
4 |
Fordham University |
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal |
39.5 |
5 |
Stanford University |
Stanford Technology Law Review |
37.7 |
6 |
Santa Clara University |
Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal |
37.4 |
7 |
Duke University |
Duke Law & Technology Review |
36.3 |
8 |
Albany Law School |
Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology |
36.1 |
9 |
Boston University |
Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law |
35 |
10 |
Columbia University |
Columbia Science and Technology Law Review |
33.7 |
11 |
Marquette University |
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review |
31.3 |
12 |
Franklin Pierce Law Center |
IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review |
30.5 |
13 |
University of North Carolina |
North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology |
29.4 |
14 |
University of Minnesota |
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology |
29.2 |
15 |
University of Virginia |
Virginia Journal of Law & Technology |
28.9 |
16 |
University of Texas |
Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal |
28.6 |
17 |
University of Colorado |
Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law |
26.8 |
18 |
Yale University |
Yale Journal of Law & Technology |
25.7 |
IP Curriculum: Finally, William Mitchell College of Law has compiled a "Report on Intellectual Property Curricula" at the various law schools and used that to create a ranking based on course offerings.
Ranking |
Law School |
Total Points |
1 |
Santa Clara University School of Law |
19.5 |
2 |
Suffolk University Law School |
19 |
3 |
Whittier Law School |
18 |
4 (tie) |
Franklin Pierce Law Center |
17 |
|
Georgetown University Law Center |
17 |
|
Seton Hall University School of Law |
17 |
|
The George Washington University Law School |
17 |
|
William Mitchell College of Law |
17 |
9 |
The John Marshall Law School |
16 |
10 (tie) |
Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology |
15 |
|
The University of Akron School of Law |
15 |
12 |
DePaul University College of Law |
14.5 |
13 |
Vanderbilt University Law School |
14 |
14 |
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law-Yeshiva University |
13.5 |
15 (tie) |
Loyola University Chicago School of Law |
13 |
|
Thomas Jefferson School of Law |
13 |
17 (tie) |
George Mason University School of Law |
12 |
|
Michigan State University College of Law |
12 |
|
New York Law School |
12 |
|
University of Houston Law Center |
12 |
|
University of Illinois College of Law |
12 |
|
University of Pittsburgh School of Law |
12 |
|
University of San Diego School of Law |
12 |
24 |
University of Richmond School of Law |
11.5 |
25 (tie) |
Arizona State University-Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law |
11 |
|
Golden Gate University School of Law |
11 |
|
Pepperdine University School of Law |
11 |
|
Seattle University School of Law |
11 |
|
Stanford University Law School |
11 |
|
University of California-Berkeley School of Law |
11 |
|
University of California-Hastings College of the Law |
11 |
|
University of San Francisco School of Law |
11 |
|
Washington University School of Law |
11 |
“I got to U.C. Davis School of Law and am saddened that neither our school or any of our professors made any of these lists : (”
Don’t worry BE, I was a Davis grad and had no problem getting a job. The specialty rankings are mostly s**t. Davis has a good enough rep, particulary in California, that you should be fine.
“including a brief stop in Indianapolis in ’06”
A bit too brief perhaps, but otherwise a great showing from the Patriots.
Thanks for the input.
Well Indianapolis is outside the NOVA/DC area.
(Jules is clearly not a college basketball fan…)
“including a brief stop in Indianapolis in ’06”
What does this have to do with getting around the world? Is this supposed to be an exemplary place where all people who travel the world make brief stops in? I honestly don’t get it. Maybe you could elaborate.
“a degree from Mason is not as portable/respected…once you leave”
Nonsense.
My Mason degree, plus my own hard work, has gotten me around the world, including a brief stop in Indianapolis in ’06. Get real anon.
To xmnr – If you know that you’ll likely be spending your entire career in DC/NOVA, then save the money and go for Mason. If, however, you think may want to someday work in NY, LA, Houston, Dallas, etc. (i.e. anywhere outside DC/NOVA), then I’d personally go for GW. A degree from Mason is not as portable/respected as GW once you leave DC/NOVA.
If you can afford GW, by all means go. That being said, you will never regret a decision to go to Mason. Its not so much where you go, its what you do when you get there.
argh… typo that was suppose to be “go to”
I got to U.C. Davis School of Law and am saddened that neither our school or any of our professors made any of these lists : (
“As a GW grad myself, I recommend George Mason”
The conflicting advice here worries me since I am going to have to decide SOON between George Washington and George Mason, both full-time.
$44k/yr versus $20k/yr, ranking 20 versus ranking 42, higher placement success versus poor placement, liberal versus libertarian
Uhg. Anyone want to just decide for me? I’m about to flip a coin, any advice is greatly appreciated.
“To think that Mason is somehow a better school than Tulane (according to USNWR), is laughable”
You need another drink my friend. And how many beads would it take to make you change your mind?
“Mason is a great and grossly underrated school/program.”
Mason is a master at gaming the USNWR rankings. It is a *very* regional school with very little reach/recognition beyond DC or Northern Virginia. To think that Mason is somehow a better school than Tulane (according to USNWR), is laughable.
Franklin Pierce – hands down – dominates Patent curriculum. GW is a close second.
USNWR rankings are based on all IP – including TM and (C). That being said, you want to be a patent practicioner – consider Franks!
Mason was among the first in leading the way to establishing an IP focused law program (before anyone/everyone else was doing it). Mason is a great and grossly underrated school/program.
“It appears that GWU has the best program, but shelling out over $120k for a degree is a bit nauseating. Is it really worth it, compared to paying 1/2 that price at George Mason?”
As a GW grad myself, I recommend George Mason. The finances make a lot more sense, and you’ll crush the curve in the night program at Mason. GW might give you a little more entry at biglaw and/or in lit, but really not that much. I see about equal numbers of practitioners, associates and partners alike, from the two schools across the DC IP shops.
EV: It appears that GWU has the best program, but shelling out over $120k for a degree is a bit nauseating. Is it really worth it, compared to paying 1/2 that price at George Mason?
Consider going straight to the horse’s mouth. Check the websites of some firms where you would like to work, and look at where their more junior IP-specialized lawyers went to school. Phone up recruiting contacts at those firms and ask them how much of a difference the name of your school makes in the selective process. If your school correlates with your suitability to practice in any way, chances are it’ll be an important factor during recruiting.
Whatever information you manage to obtain this way, it’s guaranteed to be more reliable than you’d get from strangers on a blog.
“Glad to see both my schools University of Houston (JD) and George Washington (LLM) are up there. Did I really choose right over 35 years ago?”
And I’M glad to see that you gave yourself your annual self-congratulatory pat on the back the same as you do each year when Dennis posts this lamea$$ “ranking” list.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that of USNWR’s “top ranked IP schools”, very few (almost none) actually had much in the way of IP curricula, and the schools with the heaviest IP curricula didn’t make it into USNWR’s “ranking” of “top” IP schools?
That shows how much the USNWR ranking are really worth — nothing.
I had to chuckle at the “tool” post of Dr. Factor.
self promotion, trade secret, decide up front.
very funny.
Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.
Look a bit closer at the glove in hand that doesn’t fit. Is it any wonder Johny C kicked your A?
Dennis,
At least part of the purpose of blogging is self-promotion. I think the next step is to take all your data and combine into a scientific ranking where you ascribe appropriate weight to each relevant parameter. For obvious reasons, the weighting should remain a trade-secret.
Decide up front what position is the highest that your current academic employers can credibly have, and use that to set the weightings.
This is a tried and tested academic tool.
Can anyone honestly answer how much ranking does matter? I’m looking into GWU, George Mason and Georgetown. (I’d like to work as a patent examiner while going to law school part time.) My master’s is from a “top 3” aerospace engineering school- i feel it made me a vastly better engineer, but it did jack for my career (been working as an engineer for a few years now- with 8 patents pending myself). It appears that GWU has the best program, but shelling out over $120k for a degree is a bit nauseating. Is it really worth it, compared to paying 1/2 that price at George Mason?
“if it don’t fit, you cannot convict.”
That doesn’t work.
Johnny C, u shall never be.
Dennis – Thanks for the response and explanation. That sounds like a solid methodology. Results are interesting.
As I think about it, the amount of time professors have been teaching must really compound citations substantially (maybe even too much so). As you noted, no one on that list has been teaching patent law for less than 10 years. But things have changed so much over the last 10 years. I wonder if there might be a way to capture the contributions of younger thought leaders… Have you ever seen anyone look at amicus brief filings, e.g., over the last 10 years? Granted, anyone can file an amicus brief, and I think a lot of names get attached to those that may not have been involved in formulating the positions, but maybe something like that might provide a better picture of which professors are influencing patent law/policy in a way that captures the work of younger professors too. Just a thought…
Skyywise, Those journals were not excluded. Rather, they did not make the top-20 list (based on citations).
DC
Regarding the law journal metric, it should be noted that George Washington houses both the AIPLA journal as well as the Federal Circuit Journal (recently moved from George Mason), both of which obviously deal heavily with patent law. The editors are students, so I’m not sure what disqualifies these journals from the list.
…and I just saw B. Fletcher’s post above making this point already. Go GW.
6,
Where was that? If I remember correctly, the lady kicked your assumptions to smithereens.
Did you ever hook up with her?
@ Jason: Remember back when you were a 2L looking for a summer job. I can think of at least two people who cared about rankings – one was the HR person sorting hundreds of resumes. Not from a top tier school or top ranked in IP, that one goes in the trash.
Are you of the opinion that any other nation has comparable IP educational resources?, or comparable inventing resources & successes?
I have no significant knowledge of those facts. Neither do you, I’m sure, but it won’t stop you from having an opinion.
“Someone somewhere had a discussion about this, but I cannot remember where. I do remember 6 beign involved, so maybe he can help us out.”
Yes that was me and NAL where she believed that reopening couldn’t be done practically ever after an appeal was decided. Although nobody said director’s sig was required for a new search, and it is not. That’s up to the examiner.
Dear IANAE,
Are you of the opinion that any other nation has comparable IP educational resources?, or comparable inventing resources & successes?
Dear IANAE,
knowshit.
Brian – There are at least 25 more IP-focused journals that would rank below the Yale journal. These include the AIPLA QJ and the JPTOS.
Dennis – AIPLA Quarterly Journal not listed? It certainly fits your criteria for “student-edited IP Law Journal.” The journal’s staff office is located at GWU and while the journal staff competition isn’t limited to GW Law students, the vast majority of staff members and editors are GW Law students. It is pretty much a GW Law journal in all but name.
Kevin — You asked about my methodology for the patent law professors.
I ran two different searches of law review articles in Westlaw. The first search was “focused” in that I looked articles that used the word “patent” near the professor’s name (within 10 words). The second search was broader and looked for any articles that contained both the professor’s name and a term such as “patent law”, “patent infringement”, “patent prosecution”, or “patent act” anywhere in the article. The focused search was intended to pick-up times when the professor had actually written about patent law, and the broader search was intended to pick-up times when the professor’s work had influenced an article that itself was about patent law. I then took the product of these two citation counts as the final score. Using the product meant that professors who scored well on both measures performed relatively better than those with skewed scores.
Professor O’Rourke has written a number of patent law articles. Her most famous one is one where she suggests that patent law should have a fair use regime.
USA, USA, USA leads the USA in patent-law higher educational facilities – Way to Go USA.
Fixed that for you.
It’s a list of American schools. What country did you expect would come out on top?
higher educational facilities…
self-educated ordinary inventors…
OK Johny Cochran, if it don’t fit, you cannot convict.
And, of course, it goes without saying, “THIS” And self-educated ordinary inventors.
Like hand in glove – – –
USA, USA, USA leads the World in patent-law higher educational facilities – Way to Go USA.
THIS is the real wealth of our nation!
Dennis – How did you structure your search to ensure that the citations were somehow related to patent law? I associate a lot of the names on the list primarily with patent law, but there are some names that I associate mostly with trademark or copyright law or just with IP law generally. Surprising to see Maureen O’Rourke with more patent-related law review citations than Michael Meurer…
“Even the examiner hasn’t really searched the case, because the Board decided that whatever the examiner did before was wrong. The only thing for it is to have the examiner search the case again, bearing in mind the guidance from above.”
Not quite IANAE. If I may be Supreme, The clue being that the examiner’s reasoning is wrong – not necessarily his search. There is a presumption that the examiner knows how to do that part of his job right (imagine that). I think that “search the case again is a step of examination which requires sign-off prior to undertaking.
Jules, the need for sig. is correct only for the BPAI rejecting the Examiner – remand is back under full authority of the examiner, so no Director’s signature needed.
Someone somewhere had a discussion about this, but I cannot remember where. I do remember 6 beign involved, so maybe he can help us out.
All these remands.
Sadly, that’s how the system works. The appellate board can’t decide the case on the fact record before it, so it remands.
The best the Board can do for an applicant is overturn the examiner’s rejection. But then what? The Board can’t allow the case, because the Board hasn’t searched the case. Even the examiner hasn’t really searched the case, because the Board decided that whatever the examiner did before was wrong. The only thing for it is to have the examiner search the case again, bearing in mind the guidance from above.
Courts of appeal work the same way. Either the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court might decide that the case turns on certain facts that the trial court didn’t think were important. The trial court didn’t find those facts because it didn’t think they were important, so they’re not before the appellate panel. What choice do they have, other than to ask the trial court to go find those facts and send the case back up?
Also off topic, question:
If a case gets remanded to the examiner, does it require a Director’s signature for all actions thereafter?
Continuing off topic: All these remands. Is that what pleases Team Examiner? If not, will Team E take revenge on the Board? And, if so, I take it that this is i) not good news for Inventors, and ii) only a temporary easing of the backlog problem.
My back itches. Can anyone help me?
NWPA–thank you for your comment. I personally think Arti Rai belongs in that group as well, and wonder what will come of her position at the PTO.
Jason: agreed – more IP field navel gazing.
Many of the most successful (and good) patent lawyers I know are graduates of no-name schools. This simply does not seem to be a field in which having blue-chip law school credentials matters much.
On the other hand, if you are a prospective student and you are contemplating this list, I will make it simple for you: go to the all-around best law school you can get into that personal circumstances permit you to attend, even if it is light on patent courses. If you go at this with an open mind (which you should), you might well decide to do something with your law degree other than patent litigation or preparation, in which case law school rank does have its privileges.
Seriously!?…is there a single practicing attorney that cares about this nonsense?
Blah, blah, blah, blah…
Typical American insubstantial credentialist-driven hierarchical sort.
THIS TYPE OF THING IS THE PROBLEM.
HOW ABOUT SOME SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA?
NO, THAT WOULD RUIN EVERYTHING!
Glad to see both my schools University of Houston (JD) and George Washington (LLM) are up there. Did I really choose right over 35 years ago?
And, I agree with the posters in the other thread that a fed. cir. judge should have a science background. Rader does not. He is good despite this, but he can be easily snowed. He starts talking like a man with no flotation device and a 30 lb. weight in deep water when he trys to explain technology.
>>Judges Moore would jump into the top-ten.
Adelman’s book on patent law is about 1,000 times better than anything Moore has ever or will ever do.
Moore is ditz that figured out how to game the system. Lemley is a ditz that figured out how to game the system. Both of them are the types of people that have destroyed this country and created an empty hollow destroyed mass surrounded by gamers that steal the lime light and money. They are both shameful human beings.
Adelman is quite the contrary and to imagine that Moore should go above Adelman is an insult beyond reason.
I’m glad to see my law school alma mater (University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law) made one of the lists. A good group of IP law professors there (Jim Gibson, Chris Cotropia and Kristen Jakobsen Osenga).
Comments are closed.