• Evolving Technology Regulation: Governance at a Temporal Distance, in Bridging Distances in Technology and Regulation (R. Leenes & Kosta eds., Wolf 2013).
  
  
• Proxy Signals: Capturing Private Information for Public Benefit, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1 (2012).[ssrn]
  
  
• Promoting Environmental Innovation with Intellectual Property Innovation: A New Basis for Patent Rewards, 24 Temple J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 51 (2005) reprinted in 5 ICFAI J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 12 (2006), reprinted in Law and Economics of Innovation 344 (E.M. Salzberger, Elgar 2012).[ssrn]
  
  
• The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks, 2 Nature Climate Change 732 (2012) (with D. Kahan & others).[more]
  
  
• To Promote the Creative Process: Intellectual Property Law and the Psychology of Creativity, 86 Notre Dame L. Rev 1999 (2011).[ssrn]
  
  
• Will America Reinvent Itself? Patent Reform in 2011, 2011-AUG Bus. L. Today 1.
  
  
• Will America Reinvent Itself? The Patent Pendulum and Patent Reform in 2011, Temp. L. Rev. Online F. (Jul. 13, 2011).[more]
  
  
• Regulating Nanotechnology through Intellectual Property Rights, in International Handbook On Regulating Nanotechnologies (Elgar 2010).[more]
  
  
• California, in Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property (ABA 2d ed., 2002; 3d ed., 2010) (with Kray & Kroesche).[more]
  
  
• Left-Brain versus Right-Brain: Competing Conceptions of Creativity in Intellectual Property Law, 44 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 283 (2010).[more]
  
  
• Another Missed Opportunity: The Supreme Court's Failure to Define Nonobviousness or Combat Hindsight Bias in KSR v. Teleflex, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 323 (2008), reprinted in Patent L. Rev. 17 (2009).[ssrn]
  
  
• Gaps, Inexperience, Inconsistencies, and Overlaps: Crisis in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Plants and Animals, 45 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2167 (2004) excerpted in Cases and Materials on Environmental Law (D.A. Farber, J. Freeman & A.E. Carlson, 8th ed., West 2009).[ssrn]
  
  
• Regulating Emerging Technologies, 1 L. Innovation & Tech. 75 (2009).[ssrn]
  
  
• The Non-Obvious Problem: How the Indeterminate Non-Obvious Standard Produces Excessive Patent Grants, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 57 (2008).[ssrn]
  
  
• Nanotechnology Governance, 59 Ala. L. Rev. 1323 (2008).[ssrn]
  
  
• Substantial Equivalence, in Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy 284 (Macmillan 2008).
  
  
• When to Open Infrastructure Access, 35 Ecology L.Q. 205 (2008).[ssrn]
  
  
• Does Hindsight Bias Affect Obviousness Rulings?, Nat'l L.J., Aug. 18, 2008.
  
  
• Thomas Edison's Patent Application for the Incandescent Light, in Milestone Documents in American History (Salem 2008).[more]
  
  
• History Lessons for a General Theory of Law and Technology, 8 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 551 (2007).[ssrn]
  
  
• Intellectual Property and the Biological Sciences, 2007 Judicial Conference of the 2nd Circuit of the U.S., 278 FRD 201.
  
  
• Patently Non-Obvious II: Experimental Study on the Hindsight Issue before the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, 9 Yale J.L. & Tech. 1 (2007).[ssrn]
  
  
• Cost-Benefit Analysis Versus the Precautionary Principle: Beyond Cass Sunstein's Laws of Fear, 2006 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1037 (2006) (with J. Gathii).[ssrn]
  
  
• EMS/Innovative Regulatory Approaches, in ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, Nanotechology Project (ABA 2006) (with others).
  
  
• Brief of Intellectual Property Law Professor as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1350 (with M. Lemley, R.P Wagner, F.S. Kieff, & C. Cotropia).
  
  
• Patently Non-Obvious: Empirical Demonstration that the Hindsight Bias Renders Patent Decisions Irrational, 67 Ohio St. L.J. 1391 (2006).[ssrn]
  
  
• The Future of Biotechnology Litigation and Adjudication, 23 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 83 (2006).[ssrn]
  
  
• The Generic Biologics Debate: Industry's Unintended Admission that Biotech Patents Fail Enablement, 11 Va. J.L. & Tech. 8 (2006).[ssrn]
  
  
• Toward Rational Regulation of Genetically Modified Food, 4 Santa Clara J. Int'l L. 21 (2006).
  
  
• Brief of Business and Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondents, in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1350 (with others).
  
  
• Limits of Agricultural Economics for Agricultural Biotechnology, in Focus on Agricultural Economics (Nova 2005).[more]
  
  
• New Frontiers: The Future of Biotechnology Litigation and Adjudication, 23 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 83 (2005/2006).
  
  
• Techology Wars: The Failure of Democratic Discourse, 11 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 117 (2005).[more]
  
  
• Patent Primer-Patent Law for the Non-patent Attorney, in Bridging the Gap: Intellectual Property (NY State Bar Association 2004).
  
  
• Confidence-Building Measures for Genetically Modified Products: Stakeholder Teamwork on Regulatory Proposals, 44 Jurimetrics J. 41 (2003).[ssrn]
  
  
• Toward a Better Decisionmaking Process: Finding the Truth in Policy and Removing False Science, 15 Temple Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 65 (1996).
  
  
• Institutional Settlement Procedure for Disputes Arising from Environmental Problems on the Moon (Stanford Law and Technology Policy Center 1995).
  
  
• Rotation Periods for Seven Stars in the Trapezium Cluster, 383 Astronomical J. L75 (1991) (with W. Herbst).
  
  
• Star Variation on the Orion Nebula, Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Wesleyan University (May 1991).