Faculty in the News

Faculty News

  • Prof. Wolf Quoted by Science on Controversial Return of Results Study from NIH

    August 3, 2021

    Science magazine quoted Professor Susan Wolf in an article on a controversial new study published by Will Schupmann and colleagues. They surveyed participants from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) environmental health study more than a year after their initial enrollment in the study. Survey results showed that nearly half of those who had initially declined to receive secondary findings discovered in the course of research now opted to receive them. Even though Schupmann et al. found that “a greater proportion of Black participants refused” secondary findings, the authors proposed “a default practice of attempting to return medically actionable genetic findings to research participants, without actively soliciting preferences.” Prof. Wolf objected, in part because of the higher rate of refusal by Black participants: “That strengthens the argument for saying we’ve really got to get true consent, opt-in consent from everyone.”

  • Prof. Smith Co-Authors Article in TaxNotes on Economic Impact Payments and College-Aged Dependents

    July 27, 2021

    Prof. Smith published a joint article in TaxNotes with Dylan Bellisle, a public policy and administration researcher at the University of Chicago, on Economic Impact Payments (commonly referred to as stimulus payments) and issues with college aged dependents. 

  • Prof. Carol Chomsky Co-authors Article on Racial Disparities in Bar Exam Results for Bloomberg Law

    July 23, 2021

    Bloomberg Law recently published an Insight article by Professor Carol Chomsky and three co-authors from the Collaboratory on Legal Education, titled “Racial Disparities in Bar Exam Results—Causes and Remedies.” The authors write, “Stark racial disparities mark the legal profession’s licensing process… This might be defensible if a high-stakes, speeded exam based on extensive memorization were necessary to protect the public. But it’s not.”

  • Prof. Smith Quoted in LAW360 discussing IRS Offer in Compromise Tax Settlement Program.  

    July 22, 2021

    The National Taxpayer Advocate’s Objectives Report to Congress noted a decrease in the number of Offer in Compromise submissions to settle back tax debts. Professor Smith was quoted discussing the opportunities and potential downsides for the IRS in potentially allowing elecronic submissions for Offers.

  • Prof. Turoski Elected as President of National Association of Patent Practitioners

    July 19, 2021

    Professor Christopher M. Turoski was elected president of the National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP). NAPP is a nonprofit trade organization dedicated to supporting patent practitioners in patent prosecution matters. For over 25 years, NAPP served as the organization of choice for all patent prosecution professionals across the nation.

  • Prof. McDonnell Receives ComplianceNet Senior Paper Award

    June 29, 2021

    A paper co-authored by Professor Brett McDonnell has received the annual Senior Paper Award from ComplianceNet. The Award “recognizes scholarly work of senior scholars … in the broadly defined areas of compliance.” ComplianceNet is “an interdisciplinary network to disseminate and synthesize research about compliance.” The paper which won the award is “Green Boardrooms?”, co-authored with Hari Osofsky, a former professor at the Law School, and two Australian legal scholars, Jacqueline Peel and Anita Foerster. The paper is based on interviews with several dozen corporate leaders and investors on the proliferating use of corporate and securities law tools such as disclosure, shareholder engagement, and fiduciary duty to address climate change.

  • Prof. Turoski Provides Expert Analysis and Opinion to Law360

    June 24, 2021

    Professor Chris Turoski provided expert analysis and opinion in his piece titled “We Need Reliable Data On Patent Agent, Atty Gender Diversity,” which published in Law360. According to the piece: 

    New data shows four times as many women become patent agents (22.78%) than patent attorneys (5.65%). Can this be correct? Several organizations and associations are working to identify accurate data to characterize current diversity in the patent bar and establish metrics. The “Mr.” and “Ms.” designation instituted by the USPTO is a less than perfect proxy for gender because it permits only a binary choice of “Mr.” or “Ms.,” which is not reflective of our modern understanding of gender. Yet, the USPTO’s mere collection of this data improperly compels its use as a proxy for gender. The designation should be updated or replaced. The question “what percentage of registered patent practitioners are women?” begs the further question: “what percentage of registered patent practitioners are patent agents who are women?” Is the class of patent agents more diverse than the class of patent practitioners overall? More specifically, are women more likely to become and maintain status as patent agents compared to the status of patent attorneys? Although some oppose the collection of this data based on potential abuse, such data would provide a more accurate and reliable measure of the diversity of patent practitioners, which would inform whether increasing the number of patent agents would significantly increase the diversity of the patent bar.
  • Prof. Cotter Participates in Podcast on Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases

    June 21, 2021

    On June 21, Professor Tom Cotter participated in a podcast on developments in the law of patent injunctions published on the FOSS Patents Blog.  Topics included newly-approved German legislation on injunctions in patent cases; a referral by a German court to the Court of Justice for the European Union on a question relating to preliminary injunctions in patent cases; and two decisions of the German Federal Supreme Court on injunctions in cases involving FRAND-committed standard essential patents.  Professor Cotter discussed how German practice regarding these issues compares and contrasts with the practice of U.S. courts.

  • Texas Supreme Court Cites Prof. Cotter's Article on Takings and Intellectual Property

    June 21, 2021

    In an opinion handed down on June 18, 2021, Jim Olive Photography v. University of Houston System, the Texas Supreme Court held that a governmental unit’s “violation of a copyright, without more, is not a taking” of private property for which just compensation is due under the Texas or U.S. Constitutions. The court cited Professor Tom Cotter’s article, Do Federal Uses of Intellectual Property Implicate the FIfth Amendment?, 50 Florida Law Review 529 (1998), for the propositions that “copyright is ‘nonrivalrous,’ meaning that ‘another person can use it without simultaneously depriving anyone else of its use,’” and that for this reason “the government’s use of the work ‘does not prevent the [copyright] owner … from licensing others to use it.’”

  • Professor Shen's Scholarship cited by U.S. Supreme Court

    June 15, 2021

    In his dissent in Borden v. United States (decided June 10, 2021), Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited Professor Francis Shen’s law review article, Sorting Guilty Minds. The case involved interpretation of the required mens rea in the Armed Career Criminal Act, and Justice Kavanaugh cited Professor Shen’s article when discussing the often blurry line between “reckless” and “knowing” mental states. The article, co-authored with colleagues from the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, is part of Professor Shen’s extensive work at the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and criminal mental states.


E.g., Sep 25 2021
E.g., Sep 25 2021

Contact Information

University of Minnesota Law School

Walter F. Mondale Hall | 229 19th Avenue South | Minneapolis, MN 55455

P: 612-625-5000

Email Us

Connect on Social Media