2015 National Student Symposium
Our patent system has historically been thought to be an engine of innovation, but it is much criticized today. Is a one-size-fits all model for patent duration appropriate in today's technological environment or does it simply incentivize unnecessary litigation? For instance, the rapid pace of technological change in some areas may obviate the need of lengthy patents in some areas. Should certain innovation—such as business processes be patentable? Should the patent office be reorganized or split up to better assess patents. What other types of incentives, including those provided by copyright or prizes, provide alternatives to patents?
- Ms. Phyllis Turner-Brim, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Intellectual Ventures
- Prof. Doug Melamed, Visiting Professor, Stanford Law School
- Prof. Michael Meurer, Boston University School of Law
- Mr. Adam Mortara, Partner, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP
- Moderator: Hon. Danny J. Boggs, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
This program was presented on February 21, 2015, as part of the 2015 Federalist Society National Student Symposium. SCOTUScast 4-15-15 featuring Greg Dolin
Gregory Dolin April 15, 2015
On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for two cases: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems and Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises. In Commil, the question is whether a defendant's good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is a defense against a claim of induced patent infringement. In Kimble, the issue concerns whether the Court should overturn a long-standing precedent under which a patent-holder cannot obtain royalty payments beyond the expiration of the patent.
To discuss these cases, we have Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law. 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. 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.
Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues
- Prof. Kristen Osenga, University of Richmond School of Law
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.
- 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