Law & InnovationTuesday, May 17, 09:00 AMThe Mayflower Hotel 1127 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20036
The Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will be held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The theme of the conference is "Law & Innovation". There is no cost to attend the conference. [Register now!]
On February 23, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, which was consolidated with Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer. Both of these cases involved claims of patent infringement relating to the sale or marketing of various inventions. Both also involved a determination by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that an award of enhanced damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 was not appropriate, after applying the Circuit’s two-part objective/subjective test for willful or bad-faith infringement set forth in In re Seagate Tech., LLC.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Circuit’s refusal to allow enhanced damages absent a finding of willfulness under its two-part test contravenes the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284, given the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys' fee awards in exceptional cases.
To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin who is Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.
A former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and former Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have recently opined that new changes to the Federal Rules, which heighten pleading standards in patent litigation cases, go a long way to correcting perceived problems in the current patent litigation regime. They claim that, unlike some proposals being contemplated in Congress, these judicially-imposed corrections offer a solution without reducing judicial flexibility.
Robert T. Haslam, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
Hon. Paul R. Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)
Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law
Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy at Pepperdine School of Law, explains the FAA’s distinction between the commercial and the recreational use of drones, questioning whether or not this distinction is important.
Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy at Pepperdine School of Law, discusses new regulations concerning recreational drone use recently issued by the FAA. Professor McNeal explains that these new regulations represent an enormous break from the past, and likely stem from the widespread and increasing popularity of drones.