United States patent law has traditionally authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. But the America Invents Act replaced the "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty and obviousness. Does this change rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country and shift the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the change Constitutional? Featuring Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Copyright law, like contract law, is deceptively complex. Just as the familiar elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration can give rise to endless disputes not easily resolved, the seemingly simple notion that an author has a time-limited monopoly on rights to a particular work of authorship gives rise to many questions. Given constantly-changing technology for fixing works of original expression in tangible media, ever-evolving means of copying and piracy, and repeated revisions to U.S. copyright law, both the courts and creators have had a difficult time understanding core concepts and keeping up with how the law is applied. Nowhere is this difficulty more apparent than in the Second Circuit’s attempts to keep the law of copyright straight in the area of “hot news.” [Read more!]

The Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted this panel on "IP and Parallel Importation—Should the U.S., Through IP Laws and Other Means, Protect Businesses from “Gray Goods” Imported Without Manufacturers’ Authorization?" on Thursday, November 10, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. This panel featured Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; Mr. David Salmons of Bingham McCutchen LLP; Mr. Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge; and Judge Randall R. Rader of the U. S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit as the moderator.

Google’s business practices are currently under review by the Federal Trade Commission, several state Attorneys General, and the European Commission. Competitors and critics assert that the Google search engine, and its search engine’s results, should be reviewed and potentially regulated by government authorities. Google and its supporters assert that it is merely trying to provide the best answers for consumers. In the fast moving technology space, what role -- if any -- should antitrust authorities play in policing search engine methodology and results? How should regulators respond to allegations of “unfairness?” Most recently, the government’s interest in Google has expanded to include questions about its proposed acquisition of Motorola – what is the proper governmental role here? [Watch or listen now!]