Joseph S. Miller
B.A., St. John's College
M.S., J.D., Northwestern University
Intellectual Property Survey
Joseph S. Miller, who specializes in intellectual property law and competition law, joined the University of Georgia Law faculty in 2011 as a professor teaching Patent Law, Intellectual Property Law Survey and Antitrust Law. From 2015 to 2017, he served as the faculty director of the Georgia Law at Oxford Program. He also taught in the Oxford program in spring 2013.
Miller's scholarship focuses on intellectual property law the larger legal frameworks that structure competition in a market economy (of which i.p. law is one example). His recent work appears in the Illinois Law Review, the Stanford Technology Law Review, the Administrative Law Review and the Cardozo Law Review. He has also co-authored a casebook with Professor Lydia Loren, titled Intellectual Property Law: Cases & Materials (6th ed., 2018).
He came to Athens from Lewis & Clark Law School, where he taught from 2002 to 2011. Miller started his teaching career in 2001 as a visiting assistant professor at Northwestern University School of Law, his alma mater.
Before teaching, Miller worked as an attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he helped with a variety of investigations that included intellectual property law components. Additionally, he practiced both patent and general appellate law at Sidley & Austin and served as a judicial clerk for Judge Paul R. Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He was later appointed to the Federal Circuit Advisory Council, a post he held for five years.
Miller earned his bachelor's degree from St. John's College, where he graduated first in his class, and his master's degree and law degree cum laude from Northwestern University, where he was an articles editor of the Northwestern University Law Review.
Law's Semantic Self-Portrait: Discerning Doctrine with Co-Citation Networks and Keywords, 81 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (2019).
Brandeis’s I.P. Federalism: Thoughts on Erie at Eighty, 52 Akron L. Rev. 367 (2019).
Charting Supreme Court Patent Law, Near and Far, 17 Chi. Kent J. Intell. Prop. 2 (2018).
Which Supreme Court Cases Influenced Recent Supreme Court IP Decisions? A Citation Study 21 UCLA J.L. & Tech. 1 (2017).
Reasonable Certainty & Corpus Linguistics: Judging Definiteness After Nautilus & Teva, 66 U. Kan. L. Rev. 39 (2017).
The Immorality of Requesting Expedited Review, 21 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 211 (2017).
Abercrombie 2.0 - Can We Get There from Here? The Thoughts on 'Suggestive Fair Use', 77 Ohio St. L.J. Furthermore 1 (2016).
The Idea of the Casebook: Pedagogy, Prestige, and Trusty Platforms, 11 Wash. J. L. Tech. & Arts 31 (2015) (with L. Loren).
Error Costs & IP Law, 2014 U. Ill. L. Rev. 175 (2014).
Joint Defense or Research Joint Venture? Reassessing the Patent-Challenge-Bloc's Antitrust Status, 2011 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 5 (2011).
Substance, Procedure, and the Divided Patent Power, 63 Admin. L. Rev. 31 (2011).
Bilski v. Kappos: Everything Old is New Again, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1 (2011).
Hoisting Originality, 31 Cardozo L. Rev. 451 (2009).
Level of Skill and Long-felt Need: Notes on a Forgotten Future, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 579 (2008).
Remixing Obviousness, 16 Texas Intell. Prop. L.J. 237 (2007).
Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 Indiana L. Rev. 351 (2007).
Patent Ships Sail an Antitrust Sea, 30 Seattle U. L. Rev. 395 (2007).
Foreword: Why Open Access to Scholarship Matters, 10 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 733 (2006).
The Proven Key: Roles and Rules for Dictionaries at the Patent Office and the Courts, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 829 (2005) (with James Hilsenteger).
Enhancing Patent Disclosure for Faithful Claim Construction, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 177 (2005).
Building a Better Bounty: Litigation-Stage Rewards for Defeating Patents, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 667 (2004).
This Bitter Has Some Sweet: Potential Antitrust Enforcement Benefits from Patent Law's Procedural Rules, 70 Antitrust L.J. 875 (2003).
Allchin's Folly: Exploding Some Myths About Open Source Software, 20 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 491 (2002).
Muddy Waters: Infringement Analysis After Markman and Warner-Jenkinson, 7 Fed. Cir. B.J. 227 (1997) (with Clyde Willian).
The Expert as Educator: Enhancing the Rationality of Verdicts in Child Sex Abuse Prosecutions, 1 Psychol., Pub. Pol'y, & L. 323 (1995) (with Ronald J. Allen).
The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education?, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1131 (1993) (Ronald J. Allen).
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: CASES & MATERIALS (3d ed. 2012) (with L. Loren).
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: CASES & MATERIALS (2d ed. 2010) (with L. Loren).
PATENTS (Critical Concepts in Intellectual Property Law Series) (2010) (editor).
The Expert as Educator, in EXPERT WITNESSES IN CHILD ABUSE CASES (Ceci & Hembrooke eds., 1998) (with Ronald J. Allen).
Patent Office Power: Tafas v. Doll, and Next Steps, OR. INTELL. PROP. NEWSLETTER, Spring 2009, at 6.
IP Policy as Governance Structure: A Fresh Look at the RAND Promise, in THE STANDARDS EDGE: GOLDEN MEAN (2006).
Another Fall, Another Festo, OR. INTELL. PROP. NEWSLETTER, Winter 2003, at 11.
The Historical Roots of Patent Prosecution Laches, OR. INTELL. PROP. NEWSLETTER, Spring 2002, at 8.