"The 25 Most Influential People in IP"

The list in law.com is based on "Interviews with dozens of professionals who work in the field." Most of the 25 most influential are in industry. Justice Kennedy made the list (he could be the answer to the most influential justice, too), as did former Judge Michel and current Judges Rader and Ward. Elected officials were Senator Leahy and Congressman Berman, tho the latter's influence in IP in the current committee arrangements is "not much." One wonders "how long ago" these interviews were done!

Nimmer and McCarthy were on the list, but Chisum was not. (Duffy and Lemley were on the list.)

Of Lemley, the law.com article said:

After publishing 109 articles and seven books, including Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, Mark Lemley is unquestionably the most-quoted IP scholar alive today. In fact, a recent survey conducted by legal research outlet HeinOnline of 19 million pages of content in the Law Journal Library found Lemley to be cited more times than the legendary U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis. Lemley's writings often offer counterintuitive theses. In one 2010 study, for example, he noted that contrary to popular belief, the Eastern District of Texas is not actually the most favorable venue in the country for patent plaintiffs. And his studies can have real-world impact: In its landmark 2006 ruling in eBay v. MercExchange, for example, the Supreme Court adopted much of the reasoning that Lemley laid out in his amicus brief on behalf of a group of law professors. A founding partner of Silicon Valley litigation boutique Durie Tangri, Lemley has been mentioned as a potential judge. Maybe, but that could be a bit restrictive for someone who clearly relishes writing on whatever topic he likes.

The law.com segment did not mention the fate of Lemley's "Ending Abuse of Contnuation" article and did not mention Durie Tangri's dumping of Shephard Fairey.

***UPDATE

Lemley's amicus brief in i4i got a push at Patently-O and an interview at IPWatchdog.

Of the amicus brief in i4i -->

[at page 7] And it [the CAFC] has
held to that view even after this Court pointed out its
unreasonableness in KSR, with panel opinions refusing
to follow KSR rather than Federal Circuit precedent and
the court repeatedly refusing to rehear the question en
banc.

[at page 8] It has adhered to that test
despite academic criticism7 and even in the face of a clear
suggestion from this Court to the contrary. This Court
should grant the petition for certiorari in order to
restore the proper, context-sensitive presumption of
validity.

Yes, the "gold plating" paper appears in footnote 7:
Mark A. Lemley et al., What To Do
About Bad Patents, Regulation, Winter 2005-06
See also On Gold-Plating Patents

Among the signatories of the brief:

Professor Christopher A. Cotropia
University of Richmond School of Law

Professor Bronwyn H. Hall
Department of Economics
University of California at Berkeley


Professor Gregory N. Mandel
Temple University Law School

Professor Jonathan Masur
University of Chicago Law School

Professor Peter S. Menell
Boalt Hall School of Law
University of California at Berkeley

Professor Daniel B. Ravicher
Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University

**Of the IPWatchDog interview, note the text, And rather than say, here is the definition of a troll, you’re on one side or the other, what we’ve got is a pretty complex ecology of kind of 12 different types of patent plaintiffs , an allusion to the Lemley work with Intellectual Ventures [IV]