MENU

Intellectual Property

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Biotechnology
  • Computer Law
  • Copyrights
  • International Practice
  • Internet
  • Patents

2017 National Lawyers Convention

Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State
November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State. More information will be posted soon!

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2017?

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
Jan Crawford, Kyle Duncan, Samuel Estreicher, Orin S. Kerr, Andrew J. Pincus, Carrie Severino September 27, 2017

This event is being live-streamed.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, alien tort statutes, and the Fourth Amendment.

The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
  • Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP
  • Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network
  • Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP
  • Moderator: Ms. Jan Crawford, CBS News

Patents and Antitrust, Worldwide - Podcast

Intellectual Property Law Practice Group Podcast
Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Alexander Okuliar August 17, 2017

The smartphone patent wars have caused a great deal of litigation and consternation. As global patent litigation has accelerated, an international arms race characterized by competing alliances and massive portfolio acquisitions ensued. One recurring claim was "hold-up": certain patent owners, having given assurances that they would license their essential technologies on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms, sought to enjoin smartphone makers from practicing industry standards. Charged with protecting consumers, antitrust enforcers experienced pressure to do something.

The FTC and other competition agencies responded aggressively, clamping down on perceived efforts by owners of RAND-encumbered SEPs to hold-up standard implementers. They happened upon the rule that such patentees violate antitrust law if they try to enjoin a “willing licensee”—essentially a “no-injunction rule.” While that approach has intuitive appeal, is it consistent with core antitrust principles? Does the no-injunction properly consider whether the relevant conduct harms competition?  Have the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's actions emboldened foreign competition agencies to act aggressively?  These and other questions were addressed.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
  • Mr. Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Patents and Antitrust, Worldwide

Intellectual Property Law Practice Group Teleforum
Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Alexander Okuliar August 15, 2017

The smartphone patent wars have caused a great deal of litigation and consternation. As global patent litigation has accelerated, an international arms race characterized by competing alliances and massive portfolio acquisitions ensued. One recurring claim was "hold-up": certain patent owners, having given assurances that they would license their essential technologies on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms, sought to enjoin smartphone makers from practicing industry standards. Charged with protecting consumers, antitrust enforcers experienced pressure to do something.

The FTC and other competition agencies responded aggressively, clamping down on perceived efforts by owners of RAND-encumbered SEPs to hold-up standard implementers. They happened upon the rule that such patentees violate antitrust law if they try to enjoin a “willing licensee”—essentially a “no-injunction rule.” While that approach has intuitive appeal, is it consistent with core antitrust principles? Does the no-injunction properly consider whether the relevant conduct harms competition?  Have the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's actions emboldened foreign competition agencies to act aggressively?  These and other questions will be addressed.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
  • Mr. Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

2017 Annual Supreme Court Round Up - Event Audio/Video

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter
Miguel Estrada, Douglas R. Cox July 28, 2017

On July 13, 2017, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Courthouse Steps: Two Cases - Matal v Tam and Packingham v North Carolina

Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group Teleforum
Michael R. Huston, Ilya Shapiro June 20, 2017

The Court has ruled today in two important cases, Matal v. Tam (aka "The Slants" copyright case) and Packingham v. North Carolina, which concerns a North Carolina law that restricts the access of convicted sex offenders to “commercial social networking” websites.  Join us for this special Teleforum at which the holdings and reasoning of both cases will be discussed.  

Featuring:

  • Mr. Michael R. Huston, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Mr. Ilya Shapiro,  Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Courthouse Steps: Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. - Podcast

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Gregory Dolin, Erika Lietzan June 20, 2017

In a decision likely to shape not only future biosimilar litigation but the biosimilar industry generally, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 2017 handed down its much-anticipated ruling in Amgen v. Sandoz.

In the first case interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the Court (J. Thomas) unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that biosimilar makers need not wait for FDA approval before providing the reference product sponsor with 180-day notice of commercial marketing. The Court also held that the statute does not provide a federal injunctive cause of action to force biosimilar applicants to provide their FDA application to the reference sponsor, but remanded to the Federal Circuit to determine whether injunctive relief might be available to reference sponsors under state law. The decision raises intriguing questions of statutory construction and policy and is expected to speed market entry of biosimilars and increase competition.The Federalist Society’s uniquely qualified, expert panel discussed the decision and its implications for the industry and patent rights generally.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
  • Prof. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law

Courthouse Steps: Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.

Intellectual Property Practice Group Teleforum
Gregory Dolin, Erika Lietzan June 19, 2017

 

In a decision likely to shape not only future biosimilar litigation but the biosimilar industry generally, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 2017 handed down its much-anticipated ruling in Amgen v. Sandoz.

In the first case interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the Court (J. Thomas) unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that biosimilar makers need not wait for FDA approval before providing the reference product sponsor with 180-day notice of commercial marketing. The Court also held that the statute does not provide a federal injunctive cause of action to force biosimilar applicants to provide their FDA application to the reference sponsor, but remanded to the Federal Circuit to determine whether injunctive relief might be available to reference sponsors under state law.  The decision raises intriguing questions of statutory construction and policy and is expected to speed market entry of biosimilars and increase competition. Please join the Federalist Society’s uniquely qualified, expert panel as they discuss the decision and its implications for the industry and patent rights generally.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
  • Prof. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law

Courthouse Steps: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. - Podcast

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Adam Mossoff, Kristen Osenga, Steven M. Tepp June 14, 2017

The Supreme Court handed down one of its most significant decisions in patent law in recent years on May 30 in Impression Products v. Lexmark International. This case will have a monumental impact on the commercialization of patented innovation in both the U.S. and in global markets. The case arose from Lexmark’s imposing restrictions on the resale and reuse of its patented toner cartridges, and whether this was permissible or not as an exercise of Lexmark’s property rights in its patent. Lexmark sued Impression Products for patent infringement for violating its post-sale restrictions. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that such post-sale restrictions are not within the scope of rights secured by a U.S. patent. This decision upends decades of licensing and sale practices in the U.S. innovation economy, and raises fundamental questions about the nature of the economic incentives that drive the patent system, as well as the nature of the property rights long secured in a patent under U.S. law. This Teleforum discussed Chief Justice Robert’s opinion in Impression Products, as well as its economic and legal implications for patent-owners and the innovation economy.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property; Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
  • Mr. Steven Tepp, President & CEO of Sentinel Worldwide; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
  • Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond

Courthouse Steps: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

Intellectual Property Practice Group Teleforum
Adam Mossoff, Kristen Osenga, Steven M. Tepp June 07, 2017

The Supreme Court handed down one of its most significant decisions in patent law in recent years on May 30 in Impression Products v. Lexmark International. This case will have a monumental impact on the commercialization of patented innovation in both the U.S. and in global markets. The case arose from Lexmark’s imposing restrictions on the resale and reuse of its patented toner cartridges, and whether this was permissible or not as an exercise of Lexmark’s property rights in its patent. Lexmark sued Impression Products for patent infringement for violating its post-sale restrictions. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that such post-sale restrictions are not within the scope of rights secured by a U.S. patent. This decision upends decades of licensing and sale practices in the U.S. innovation economy, and raises fundamental questions about the nature of the economic incentives that drive the patent system, as well as the nature of the property rights long secured in a patent under U.S. law. This teleforum will discuss Chief Justice Robert’s opinion in Impression Products, as well as its economic and legal implications for patent-owners and the innovation economy.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property; Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
  • Mr. Steven Tepp, President & CEO of Sentinel Worldwide; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
  • Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Professor of Law, University of Richmond