Skip to content
- As a presenter, you are expected to present your arguments anew, as in a conference; in other words, pretend we haven’t heard them before.
- As a reviewer, you are expected to review the logical coherence of the arguments, the format of cited resources, and presentation performance.
- All are expected to read everyone else’s AO, in addition to the one you review. This is your last chance to shore up your participation score.
- Learn to take good control of your time. Highlight your main arguments when time is short, and elaborate when time permits.
- Each session lasts 1 hr. (see time allocation table below).
Order of Presentations & Presenter-reviewer (red) Pairing:
- The order and pairing have been decided by a series of random draws in Excel.
|author’s final response
- Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961).
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. James M. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).
- Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965).
- Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 743 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1984).
- Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993).
- Peter M. Boyle, Penelope M. Lister & J. Clayton Everett, Antitrust Law at the Federal Circuit: Red Light or Green Light at the Ip-Antitrust Intersection?, 69 Antitrust L.J. 739 (2002).
- S.W. O’Donnell, Unified Theory of Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Litigation, 9 Va. J.L. & Tech 8 (2004).
- George S. Cary et al., Case For Antitrust Law To Police The Patent Holdup Problem In Standard Setting, The, 77 Antitrust L. J. 913 (2010).
- Lawrence M. Friedman, Looking Backward, Looking Forward, 28 Ind. L. Rev. 259 (1994).
- Lawrence M. Friedman, Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture, 98 Yale L.J. 1579 (1989).
- Lawrence M. Friedman, Contract Law In America (2011).