Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
The 2011 America Invents Act created provisions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and Post Grant Review (“PGR”) of patents. According to PTO statistics, to date, nearly 50,000 patent claims have been challenged under IPR, and nearly 11,000 (22.4%) of those claims have been invalidated. On June 20, 2016, in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, the Supreme Court upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) interpretation of two key elements of IPR. The Court held that (1) decisions to institute IPR proceedings are non-appealable, and (2) the PTO has the authority to determine claim meaning and validity under its “broadest reasonable construction” standard.
Important outstanding questions about the constitutionality of IPR and PGR remain, however. Specifically, once the Patent and Trademark Office has granted a patent, does a decision made by an administrative judge within the executive branch to invalidate the patent under IPR/PGR amount to a taking under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Moreover, does such a procedure by which issued patents are reviewed for validity by non-Article III judges raise separation of powers issues?
Professor Greg Dolin participated in the Teleforum to elucidate the argument that he and Irina Manta make in their recent article, Taking Patents, that PGR and IPR decisions invalidating patents do indeed amount to takings under the 5th Amendment. Professor Camilla Hrdy and Yale Information Society Law Project Fellow Ben Picozzi believe that PTAB decisions invalidating patents under IPR and PGR do not raise takings problems. These patent experts also discussed separation of powers issues related to IPR and PGR.
2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
- Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
- Prof. Camilla Hrdy, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition Fellow, University of Pennsylvania Law School
- Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor of Law, Boston College Law School
- Mr. Ben Picozzi, Student Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
This panel will discuss whether we have Federal overreach in this environmental law area, such as current interpretations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, etc., and what the appropriate roles for the Federal Government and Florida are in the context of environmental law.
This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016.
Federalism and Environmental Law
- Mr. Avi Garbow, General Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency
- Mr. Matthew Z. Leopold, Of Counsel, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA and former General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
- Prof. Erin Ryan, Professor, Florida State University College of Law
- Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
- Moderator: Hon. Edward L. Artau, Florida 15th Judicial Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Gregory Munson, Shareholder, Gunster
Disney's Boardwalk Inn Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
Lake Buena Vista, FL
In Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, eight justices of the Supreme Court agreed that a governmental taking of personal property, just like real property, was a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. In Horne, the government took physical control of parts of the Horne's raisin crop, withholding it from the market in order to influence raisin prices. Under other agricultural programs, growers are permitted to send to market only certain quantities of the produce, though the government never takes physical control of the goods. Just how sweeping is the Horne decision? Does it apply to all forms of personal property? What level of control must the government exercise over personal property in order for there to be a compensable taking? Are these other agricultural programs now suspect?
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. John D. Echeverria, Vermont Law School
- Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Professor of Law and Director, Stanford Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
John Elwood June 25, 2015
Under what circumstances can the government take your property without giving you compensation? Does it matter whether it is real property or personal property? On June 22, with an interesting alignment of justices, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Horne v. Department of Agriculture, addressing these and other questions.
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
- John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Connecticut, could condemn fifteen residential properties in order to transfer them to a new private owner. Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for "public use," the Court ruled that the transfer of condemned land to private parties for "economic development" is permitted by the Constitution. In his new book, published by the University of Chicago Press, The Grasping Hand: "Kelo v. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain, Prof. Ilya Somin argues that the closely divided 5-4 ruling in Kelo was a grave error. Prof. Somin provides a detailed study of the case, as well as of the new laws intended to limit the use of eminent domain passed in forty-five states during the political backlash following the decision, alongside a broader history of the dispute over public use and eminent domain and an evaluation of options for reform.
With the 10th anniversary of the Kelo decision approaching, Prof. Somin joined a Teleforum program to discuss the book, with Prof. Richard Epstein joining to offer his comments.
- Prof. Ilya Somin, Author, The Grasping Hand: "Kelo v. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain, and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law