MENU

Environmental Law & Property Rights

The Regulatory Reach of the FTC, and its International Implications - Event Audio/Video

Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues
Alden Abbott, Joshua D. Wright, Paul R. Michel, Dean A. Reuter December 04, 2014

Parity between the treatment of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and real property is a core principle of the DOJ/FTC 1995 Guidelines on licensing patents, which provide that the “[a]gencies apply the same general antitrust principles to conduct involving intellectual property that they apply to conduct involving any other form of tangible or intangible property.”  Are these guidelines still being followed, or have the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice have taken actions that signal a departure, and perhaps a skepticism about patent licensing activity, particularly with respect to technological standards?  Under either scenario, what are the implications for innovative U.S. companies at home and abroad, including in China where regulators are using antimonopoly powers to extract commercial concessions from U.S. technology leaders?   How can patent rights and competition policiesbest co-exist while preserving incentives for firms to invest in R&D and disseminate patented technologies through licensing, standard setting, and other voluntary arrangements?

This panel was part of a conference titled "Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues". The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Alden F. Abbott, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; former Director of Patent and Antitrust Strategy, BlackBerry
  • Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
  • Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Do the EPA’s CO2 Rules Go Too Far? - Event Video

2014 National Lawyers Convention
Paul Bailey, Elbert Lin, Robert V. Percival, Robert Sussman, Frank H. Easterbrook November 17, 2014

On June 2, 2014, the Obama Administration took action that would require a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030.  Some industry representatives and state officials contend that the goals are unattainable, and the required shut-down of even a fraction of the coal-burning power plants required will put several power grids at risk, particularly during the upcoming winter season.  Regulators site cost-benefit claims of seven to one – that is, for every dollar expended on compliance, seven dollars will be saved in other areas, largely health care.  Are the rules likely to be finalized?  If so, how must such reductions be accomplished?  How much latitude will states and private actors have in meeting the new requirements?

The Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Groups presented this panel on "Do the EPA’s CO2 Rules Go Too Far?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Paul Bailey, Senior Vice President for Federal Affairs and Policy, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
  • Mr. Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, State of West Virginia
  • Prof. Robert Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
  • Mr. Robert M. Sussman, Principal, Sussman & Associates and former Senior Policy Counsel to EPA Administrator and EPA Deputy Administrator
  • Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Hot Topics in Class Action Reform: The BP Deepwater Horizon Case - Event Audio/Video

Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups
Neal K. Katyal, Theodore B. Olson, Stuart S. Taylor September 09, 2014

Putting aside criminal cases, the stakes for all sides are perhaps never higher than in a class action case – mere certification of a class can increase the pressure to settle exponentially. But, of course, the class must be properly composed in order to be certified. In the recently-decided Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited some of the basic requirements for certification of a class of plaintiffs, including commonality. Other requirements of Rule 23 certification may surface in ongoing litigation stemming from the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where defense attorneys are arguing, among other things, that the settlement agreement is being administered and interpreted overly broadly to include numerous class members who have not suffered any injury caused by BP. Our experts will discuss recent developments in class action litigation, including a pending petition for cert in the BP case. The Federalist Society presented this panel on September 4, 2014.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Partner, Hogan Lovells, and Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

National Press Club
Washington, DC