tejas-narechania.jpg

Tejas Narechania

Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Chapter Member: Bay Area SSN
Areas of Expertise:

About Tejas

Narechania's research focuses on technology policy, with a particular focus on telecommunications and intellectual property law. Overarching themes in Narechania's research include an emphasis on institutional choice and democratic policymaking. Narechania's work has been cited by the White House, the Federal Communications Commission, and several federal courts, including the Supreme Court along with being featured in the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post, among other outlets.

Contributions

Business Practices of Cloud Computing Providers

  • Nick Merrill

In the News

"It’s Time for the Government to Regulate AI. Here’s How.," Tejas Narechania (with Ganesh Sitaraman), Politico, January 15, 2024.
Tejas Narechania quoted by Catherine Marfin, "Gilstrap, Albright May Be Overruled More In Non-Patent Cases" Law 360, February 3, 2023.
Tejas Narechania quoted by By Adam Liptak, "An ‘Imperial Supreme Court’ Asserts Its Power, Alarming Scholars" The New York Times, December 19, 2022.
"Challenge to California Net Neutrality Law Should Be Dismissed," Tejas Narechania (with Erik Stallman), Commentary > Opinon, The Mercury News, March 9, 2021.

Publications

"Inside the Internet" (with Nick Merrill). Duke Law Journal Online ( (2023).

Suggests that competition reigns the inside of the internet. Mentions the original research presented here undermines that long-held assumption. Considers how the internet’s regulatory infrastructure might respond to these new facts regarding the internet’s interior network infrastructure.

"Forum Crowding" (with Tian Kisch and Tejas N. Narechania). California Law Review (2023).

Discusses some judges solicit certain kinds of cases, like patent cases. Determines when they do so, other cases --- like criminal or civil rights cases --- suffer. Concludes judges who seek out patent cases are reversed in criminal cases more frequently, in part because they neglect these other parts of their docket.

"Certiorari in Important Cases" Columbia Law Review 122 (2021): 923.

Shows personnel changes on the Supreme Court have a significant effect on which cases the Court agrees to hear. Mentions the Roberts Court, more than any other Court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to consider. Finds this improves the interbranch dialogue over judicial reform, offers better information to litigants, and instills greater confidence in our Supreme Court.

"Convergence and a Case for Broadband Rate Regulation" Berkeley Technology Law Journal 37 (2021): 339.

Discusses how monopoly providers of internet access serve and offer worse service at comparatively higher prices. Finds rate regulation, where it exists, can help improve consumer outcomes substantially.