US Patent Reform Forum: Industry perspectives; ITC proceedings; Kappos Keynote

Logo
Presented by

1)Sherry Knowles, principle, Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies and Gary Griswold 2)Judge Paul Michel

About this talk

10.50am An Industry Perspective: We lobbied the cause; the act was passed – where did we land? • Case notes from the pharmaceuticals and life science industry perspective • Comparative reflections from the IT and software industry • Discussions on implications of AIA for the future of patenting • Advantages of trade secrets in the light of AIA: Considering recent trade secrets case law and developments 11.50 Key considerations: The Joinder Provision; ITC proceedings and the new rules on false marking • Will the Joinder Provision of AIA result in more ITC filings? • Analysisng the relationship between post-grant procedures, litigation and ITC investigations • Pros and cons of ITC under AIA • Is this the end of false marking litigation and how will or should ‘Competitive Injuries’ be defined? • A look at the opportunities and risks in the new enforcement landscape 12.50pm Keynote address: David Kappos, undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the USPTO

Related topics:

More from this channel

Upcoming talks (0)
On-demand talks (85)
Subscribers (11222)
‘What keeps in-house counsel awake at night?’ is one way to summarise our editorial focus. We aim to track the strategies of in-house IP counsel within companies, big and small, by speaking directly to them about the day-to-day issues they face. Law firms need practical information that they can apply when advising their clients, and companies find value in benchmarking their strategies with those of their peers. This is why we have adopted this approach in our subscription-based service. Our content is not reactionary or news-focused, but informed and actionable. In this pursuit of in-house intelligence, we also publish several surveys each year that include exclusive data focusing on specific industry issues. These polls allow us to provide an accurate snapshot of how in-house counsel perceive and act on a given issue. Our other core objective is interviewing senior judges, whose insight is valuable for many IP stakeholders. We find that the judiciary are vital for giving counsel, private and in-house, highly useful information for when they are locked in litigation. We continue to speak regularly with IP offices too. Regardless of its specific intent, our coverage is global and encompasses (but is not limited to) the following areas: Copyright; Data; Designs; Patents; Trademarks; and Trade secrets