After years of litigation, the bitterly fought and highly publicized smartphone patent war between two of the biggest players in the industry, Apple and Samsung, finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court. While Apple has already won the patent infringement case, the Supreme Court addressed the complicated question of how to determine damages based on a design patent in a product with thousands of other patents covering it as well. Is the statutory language clear and controlling? Are profits from the entire value of the phone the right measure? Or something less? Do design patents even have any economic value at all in a technically complex product? Is the design of a smartphone more like the design of an entire car, or just a cup holder? Our speakers will discuss the oral argument, their views on the merits of the case, as well as the important policy questions related to the economic value of design patents.
Ms. Rachel W. Apter, Senior Associate, Orrick
Prof. Mark D. Janis, Robert A Lucas Chair of Law; Director, Center for Intellectual Property Research, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, Election Lawyer Center
On October 6, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission released the long-awaited results of its 6(b) study on patent assertion entities (PAEs). The study provides detailed information about the litigation and licensing activities by the approximately twenty companies the FTC ordered to submit data. The study does more than just describe this data, though. Given that PAEs' function in the innovation industries, the FTC also proposed a number of legislative and judicial recommendations concerning how patents are asserted against alleged infringers. Thus, the FTC's PAE study is an important part of the policy debates about patents, patent licensing, patent litigation, and the impact these have on the innovation economy. In this Teleforum, the panelists discussed the study findings and their reactions to the study and its policy proposals.
Prof. Jorge L. Contreras, Associate Professor, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
Prof. Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Ms. Laurie Self, Vice President and Counsel of Government Affairs, Qualcomm Incorporated
Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of CPIP, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Recent legal developments ranging from Supreme Court decisions to administrative actions have raised significant issues about the balance between religious liberties and prohibitions against discrimination. To what extent must an individual’s right to religious freedom yield to the state’s interest in protecting individuals against discrimination? Does the Free Exercise Clause extend beyond one’s home or church?
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently issued a report that appears to tilt in favor of nondiscrimination over religious liberty. What does this portend for the future of religious liberty?
Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, ,Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
The growing role of the administrative agencies in American government is mirrored by a growing role of administrative law in legal education. The trend is exemplified by many law schools' introduction of "Legislation and Regulation" (or "Leg-Reg") as a first-year course.
But as the administrative stats and administrative law grow and change, how should the curriculum change?
To discuss this, the Administrative Law Section was pleased to host a teleforum with three leading administrative law scholars: Prof. Dan Farber of the University of California-Berkeley Law, Prof. Kristin Hickman of the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jim Tozzi, former regulatory official of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Director of Multinational Business Services at the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
The discussion was moderated by Adam White, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and an adjunct professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School.
Prof. Dan Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Co-Director and Center for Law, Energy & Environment, California-Berkeley Law
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School and Associate Director, Corporate Institute
Jim Tozzi, Former Regulatory Official of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Director of Multinational Business Services at the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
Moderator: Adam White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution
On Tuesday, October 11, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. This case involves the constitutionality of a Colorado rule that bars a defendant from introducing evidence that a juror was racially biased. The justices will consider whether applying a no-impeachment rule to block evidence in this context violates the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.