MENU

Intellectual Property

@War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Shane Harris, Paul Rosenzweig March 11, 2015

The United States military currently views cyberspace as the “fifth domain” of warfare (alongside land, air, sea, and space), and the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency all field teams of hackers who can, and do, launch computer virus strikes against enemy targets. In fact, as @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex shows, U.S. hackers were crucial to our victory in Iraq. Shane Harris delves into the frontlines of America’s new cyber war. As recent revelations have shown, government agencies are joining with tech giants like Google and Facebook to collect vast amounts of information. The military has also formed a new alliance with tech and finance companies to patrol cyberspace, and Mr. Harris offers a deeper glimpse into this partnership than we have ever seen before. Finally, Mr. Harris explains what the new cybersecurity regime means for all of us, who spend our daily lives bound to the internet — and are vulnerable to its dangers.

  • Shane Harris, Senior Correspondent, The Daily Beast, and ASU Future of War Fellow, New America
  • Paul Rosenzweig, Principal, Red Branch Law and Consulting, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 2-3-15 featuring Kristen Osenga
Kristen Osenga February 03, 2015

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. This case concerned whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim may be reviewed de novo--the standard applied by the Federal Circuit in this case--or must instead be reviewed only for clear error, in keeping with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.  The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings

Justice Breyer’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined.

To discuss the case, we have Prof. Kristen Osenga, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law. 

Supreme Court and Patents: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v Sandoz, Inc. - Podcast

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Kristen Osenga February 02, 2015

On January 20. 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The question in the case was the level of deference the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must give to a trial court’s interpretation of patent claims.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court altered the long-standing practice of the Federal Circuit to review patent claim constructions de novo, holding that a trial court’s resolution of “subsidiary factual matters” made while interpreting patent claims must be reviewed for clear error. The ultimate interpretation of the claim terms, however, remains subject to de novo review.

  • Prof. Kristen Osenga, University of Richmond School of Law

Balancing Patent Rights and Litigation Abuses - Event Audio/Video

Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues
F. Scott Kieff, Adam Mossoff, Noah Phillips, Dean A. Reuter December 04, 2014

Policy makers on Capitol Hill are poised to press forward with legislation thatpurports to address what some believe is a litigation crisis, driven by so-called non-practicing entities. Others believe the legislation would ultimately undermine important property rights and patent licensing arrangements. The latter group asserts that a growing body of empirical evidence holds that patent litigation rates have not increased significantly and in fact appear to be on the decline.   Will the proposed patent legislation address real litigation abuses, and what effect will it have on legitimate patent holders?  Is there a responsible way to address patent litigation abuses without hampering patent-based incentives to invest in innovation?  What do the answers to these questions mean for the United States efforts to promote strong IP laws abroad?

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:

  • Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission
  • Mr. Noah Phillips, Chief Counsel, U.S. Senator John Cornyn at Senate Judiciary Committee
  • Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law
  • Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

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