Month: January 2017

Categories
Copyright

IP Scholars Explain Why We Shouldn’t Use SurveyMonkey to Select Our Next Register of Copyrights

Washington D.C. at nightIn a letter submitted to House Judiciary Committee today, nine IP scholars (organized by CPIP’s Sandra Aistars) express their support for the Committee’s proposal to modernize the Copyright Office. The letter identifies three major challenges facing the Copyright Office, including “(1) insufficient funds, staff, and infrastructure to efficiently perform its core functions; (2) operational impediments stemming from its integration with the Library of Congress; and (3) potential risk of constitutional challenges to its decision-making authority should the Office take on increased regulatory or adjudicatory responsibility.”

The IP scholars laud the Committee’s recommendation that the Office be led by a principal officer of the government, nominated and confirmed like other senior government officials. The scholars also express their concern with the Library’s highly-unusual method of using a SurveyMonkey questionnaire to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to run the Copyright Office.

On December 16th, the newly-appointed Librarian solicited the public to “provide input to the Library of Congress on expertise needed by the Register of Copyrights.” The survey consists of the following three questions:

    1. What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities you believe are the most important for the Register of Copyrights?

 

    1. What should be the top three priorities for the Register of Copyrights?

 

  1. Are there other factors that should be considered?

The survey then provides an area to upload additional comments and assures that the feedback “will be reviewed and will inform development of knowledge, skills and abilities requirements for the position.”

While there may be benefits to soliciting public input on the knowledge, skills, and abilities a Register of Copyrights should embody, as the IP scholars’ letter points out, relying on a limited SurveyMonkey experiment discounts the guidance codified in Section 701(b) of the Copyright Act. Section 701(b) already lists the functions and duties of the Register of Copyrights, including:

(b) In addition to the functions and duties set out elsewhere in this chapter, the Register of Copyrights shall perform the following functions:

 

(1) Advise Congress on national and international issues relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters.(2) Provide information and assistance to Federal departments and agencies and the Judiciary on national and international issues relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters.

(3) Participate in meetings of international intergovernmental organizations and meetings with foreign government officials relating to copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters, including as a member of United States delegations as authorized by the appropriate Executive branch authority.

(4) Conduct studies and programs regarding copyright, other matters arising under this title, and related matters, the administration of the Copyright Office, or any function vested in the Copyright Office by law, including educational programs conducted cooperatively with foreign intellectual property offices and international intergovernmental organizations.

(5) Perform such other functions as Congress may direct, or as may be appropriate in furtherance of the functions and duties specifically set forth in this title.

Rather than crowd sourcing the job description, the Librarian should review the Copyright Act and consider candidates that would be best qualified to fulfill the explicit and established standards of 701(b).

By handing this over to anyone willing to fill out a SurveyMonkey form, the Library of Congress is politicizing a process that shouldn’t be politicized. The letter warns that “[w]hile it is often laudable to seek public input on important issues of policy, an online survey seeking input on job competencies from any internet user is an inefficient and inappropriate approach for developing selection criteria for this important role, particularly where such minimal background is provided to survey-takers and where there appears to be no mechanism to encourage constructive comments.”

As recently as April of last year, Fight for the Future incited an effort to spam the Copyright Office while it solicited comments regarding the DMCA notice and takedown process. Engaging in a campaign of misinformation, the advocacy group flooded the Office with automated “comments” that crippled the regulations.gov website during the last 48 hours of an important collection period. The Register’s selection process should not be handed over to Internet bullies and trolls.

The next Register of Copyrights will have an immediate and lasting effect on the administration of copyright laws, and the Library of Congress should respect long-standing norms as well as Congress’s instructions as embodied in the Copyright Act. The IP scholars’ letter reiterates that the statutory obligations of Section 701(b) require certain competencies of a Register of Copyrights and ensures that “the successful candidate can meet the management and leadership expectations attendant to a senior executive officer position in the federal government.” This is an important process that deserves more serious consideration than a SurveyMonkey poll.

Categories
Innovation

How IP Helps Individuals

the word "inspiration" typed on a typewriterThis is the second in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference, “Intellectual Property and Global Prosperity.” The Conference was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University on October 6-7, 2016. Videos of the conference panels and keynote address, as well as other materials, are available on the conference website.

The second panel of CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference discussed the positive impact of intellectual property (IP) on people’s lives. Day or night, wherever we are, IP is around us—from movies, music, books, smartphones, and computer tablets to essentials like transportation, clothing, food, and medicines—each involving some aspect of IP. Yet we rarely think of how these products are brought to us, or more importantly, the ways in which they have changed our personal and professional lives.

The panelists, Prof. Kristina Lybecker (Colorado College), Ken Stanwood (WiLAN), Howard Rachinski (Christian Copyright Licensing International), Stephen Bock (Church Music Publishers Association), and Prof. Mark Schultz (Southern Illinois University School of Law, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property) revealed how intellectual property benefits individuals by creating jobs, promoting cultural diversity, and bringing innovative products, services, and medicines to marketplaces worldwide.

Prof. Kristina Lybecker discussed how intellectual property helps individuals by promoting innovation, job creation, and international trade. She presented an international competitiveness index showing that the most innovative economies have the strongest IP regimes. The opposite is also true, and economies with weaker IP protection are less innovative and competitive on a global scale. Comparing data from the top-30 countries that comprise nearly 80% of the global economy, including the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, Australia, and Singapore, Lybecker showed that the correlation between innovation and IP protection is indeed very strong.

Likewise, intellectual property contributes significantly to jobs, wages, and trade. Lybecker presented data showing that there are 55 million jobs in the U.S. supported by IP-intensive industries, representing 46% of all private sector employment. These industries contribute $5.8 trillion to U.S. output each year, accounting for nearly one-third of total GDP. Wages in IP-focused industries are 30% higher than in other sectors, and 74% of U.S. exports come from IP-related industries. Lybecker noted that stronger IP regimes attract greater foreign direct investment and R&D spending, which increases the spread of technology and spurs market growth.

Finally, Lybecker discussed the strong correlation between drug availability and IP rights in the pharmaceutical industry. Data shows that countries with the strongest IP protection enjoy the quickest launches for new medicines and the greatest availability of treatments and cures for their populations. The U.S., for example, has the strongest IP protection for both pharmaceutical products and processes, and it is a global leader in pharmaceutical innovation.

Ken Stanwood from WiLAN highlighted the role that intellectual property in the wireless sector plays in improving people’s lives. WiLAN invented a fundamental technology that is used in the Wi-Fi physical layer that was a significant stepping stone toward broadband cellular technologies like smartphones. Since then, wireless IP has created new markets and provided better access to existing markets. For example, wireless communications and GPS technology enable popular services such as Uber and Car2Go.

Stanwood discussed how wireless IP empowers women in developing countries. For instance, Grameen Bank’s “village phone” program provides microloans to women in Bangladesh to purchase cellphones that are then shared with others in their villages. Not only has this program improved the lives of individual women by increasing their role in the family, but it has also created social and economic benefits for the entire community by providing better access to health care, education, and business transactions.

The introduction of the portable eye examination kit in Africa was another of Stanwood’s examples of how wireless IP improves people’s lives. A special portable camera attached to a smartphone enables schools, remote health providers, emergency medical workers, nurses, and general practitioners to perform various eye exams for afar, including pupil assessment, retinal evaluation, cataract examination, and even to diagnose cerebral malaria.

Howard Rachinski and Stephen Bock discussed how IP in the church music industry benefits congregations. With over 350,000 churches in the U.S. and 2.18 billion Christians around the globe, the industry is massive both in publishing and consumption. Before the digital age, publishers distributed hymnals to churches while paying royalties to songwriters and copyright owners. Congregants sang only those songs found in the hymnals, which could often be decades old. The digital age, however, changed this paradigm, and people now want a larger variety of songs. This change in music consumption has brought many challenges.

Rachinski and Bock noted that the entire church music industry reconsidered its practices and searched for new ways to empower worship by facilitating access to legal content. Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) contracted with copyright owners to aggregate their rights and make them available to churches for an affordable annual fee. CCLI currently works with 250,000 churches in 40 countries to provide more than 100,000 licensed songs of worship. Not only has this licensing scheme ensured the very survival of the church music industry, but it has also enabled more Christians to become professional songwriters.

Prof. Mark Schultz discussed how IP helps bring products to consumers. Organizations like the Gates Foundation often talk about how hard it is to bring medicines to people. In some places, vaccines are delivered on the backs of camels and donkeys. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 2 billion people around the globe have no access to medicine. And yet, Schultz noted, some products are available in every corner of the world. For example, Coca-Cola sells 2 billion servings of its products daily across the globe.

Indeed, Schultz pointed to Coca-Cola as a valuable case study on international network distribution and asset management. The protection of its brand allows Coca-Cola to secure returns on investment, protect its good will, and prevent copying of its products. Coca-Cola reduces costs by working with nearby distributors to produce, bottle, and ship its products locally. Finally, Coca-Cola has a network of local stakeholders (licensees, distributors, and consumers) who are interested in genuine products being delivered to the market. Schultz noted that the system works best when the local IP system is stable.

Lastly, Schultz turned to the evidence establishing the correlation between strong IP rights and economic growth. He referred to one economic index that demonstrated a positive relationship between patent protection and importations into developing countries. Likewise, Schultz discussed the index he created with Prof. Douglas Lippoldt illustrating that the strength of the trade secret system has positive effects on exports. They found that stronger IP regimes lead to the delivery of more pharmaceuticals and the introduction of more technological services.

Together, the five panelists gave concrete examples of the critical role of IP in helping individuals both domestically and internationally. Not only does IP create jobs, new markets, and business opportunities, but it also enables access to healthcare, medicines, education, and technologies. A strong IP system bolsters innovation, invites investment, and brings products to people. With the right IP strategy, companies can continue innovating and making a positive impact on people’s lives.

Categories
President Supreme Court

Intellectual Property Backgrounds of President Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees

U.S. Supreme Court buildingBy Andrew Baluch[1] & Devlin Hartline

President Donald Trump will soon announce his nominee to fill the vacancy left at the Supreme Court by late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On September 23, 2016, the Trump campaign revealed that there are twenty-one candidates under consideration for the nomination.

Below is a summary of the intellectual property backgrounds of President Trump’s twenty-one potential Supreme Court nominees. The summary addresses judicial, legislative, and legal experience, as well as education and scholarly work. The summary includes data on each nominee’s intellectual property cases, whether decided as a judge or argued in private practice. Where appropriate, the summary also notes legislative bills that were co-sponsored by the nominee.

Click on the nominee’s name in the table below to jump down to their detailed summary.

 

SUMMARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES
Cases Decided as Judge Cases Argued in Private Practice
No. Nominee Patent Trademark Copyright Trade Secret Patent Trademark Copyright Trade Secret
1 Blackwell, Keith 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Canady, Charles 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Colloton, Steven 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 Eid, Allison 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5 Gorsuch, Neil 0 7 4 3 0 0 0 0
6 Gruender, Raymond 0 5 7 2 0 0 1 0
7 Hardiman, Thomas 1 6 5 3 0 0 0 0
8 Kethledge, Raymond 0 4 2 1 5 0 0 0
9 Larsen, Joan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Lee, Mike N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 0 0
11 Lee, Thomas 0 0 0 3 0 27 2 1
12 Mansfield, Edward 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
13 Moreno, Federico 3 15 9 3 0 0 0 0
14 Pryor, William 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
15 Ryan, Margaret 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 Stras, David 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
17 Sykes, Diane 4 5 8 2 0 0 0 0
18 Thapar, Amul 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
19 Tymkovich, Timothy 1 5 6 2 0 0 0 0
20 Willett, Don 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 Young, Robert 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

1. Keith R. Blackwell

 

Supreme Court of Georgia (2012 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Court of Appeals of Georgia (2010 – 2012)

Prior Legal Experience

Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs LLP; Assistant District Attorney, Cobb County, GA; Alston & Bird LLP; Law Clerk to Judge J.L. Edmondson (11th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Georgia School of Law (1999); BA, University of Georgia (1996)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 1 total (in favor of owner)
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Case: Kremer v. Tea Party Patriots, Inc., 314 Ga. App. 459 (2012)

Back to top.

2. Charles T. Canady

 

Florida Supreme Court (2008 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2002 – 2008)

Prior Legislative Experience

U.S. Representative (R-FL) (1993 – 2001) (House Judiciary Committee); Florida House of Representatives (1984 – 1990)

Prior Legal Experience

General Counsel to Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, PA; Holland & Knight

Intellectual Property Bills Co-Sponsored as U.S. Representative

Co-sponsored 13 bills involving intellectual property, including: 104th-H.R.1733, Patent Application Publication Act of 1995 (introduced); 104th-H.R.1127, Medical Procedures Innovation and Affordability Act (introduced); 104th-H.R.587, Biotechnological Process Patents (passed House); 104th-H.R.359, Patent Term Restoration (introduced)

Education

JD, Yale Law School (1979); BA, Haverford College (1976)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 1 total (in favor of malpractice defendant law firm and against client patentee)
Trademark 2 total (all in favor of owner)
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009); Florida Virtual Sch. v. K12, Inc., 148 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 2014); Rooney v. Skeet’r Beat’r Of Sw. Florida, Inc., 898 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Back to top.

3. Steven M. Colloton

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2003 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Iowa; Adjunct Lecturer, University of Iowa College of Law; Private Practice, Iowa; Associate Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Iowa; Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Law Clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman (D.C. Circuit)

Education

JD, Yale Law School (1988); BA, Princeton University (1985)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 2 total (all in favor of infringer)
Trademark 9 total (7 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 1 total (in favor of owner)
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Co., 817 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2016); Schinzing v. Mid-States Stainless, Inc., 415 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2005); B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2013); C.B.C. Distribution & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007); Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004); Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, 129 F. App’x 323 (8th Cir. 2005); Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prod., Inc., 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004); Mid-State Aftermarket Body Parts, Inc. v. MQVP, Inc., 466 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2006); Sensient Techs. Corp. v. SensoryEffects Flavor Co., 613 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2010); Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prod., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014); Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC, 647 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2011); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)

Back to top.

4. Allison H. Eid

 

Colorado Supreme Court (2006 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Solicitor General, State of Colorado; Associate Professor, University of Colorado School of Law; Arnold & Porter; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Chicago Law School (1991); BA, Stanford University (1987)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 1 total (dissenting in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0 (but in 1 case analogizing to patent law for “full compensation” damages)
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Case: Acoustic Mktg. Research, Inc. v. Technics, LLC, 198 P.3d 96 (Colo. 2008)

Back to top.

5. Neil M. Gorsuch

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Principal Deputy to U.S. Associate Attorney General; Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans; Law Clerk to Justice Byron R. White and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Circuit)

Education

DPhil, Oxford University (2004); JD, Harvard Law School (1991); BA, Columbia University (1988)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 7 total (2 in favor of owner; 5 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 4 total (all in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 3 total (2 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Earthgrains Baking Companies Inc. v. Sycamore Family Bakery, Inc., 573 F. App’x 676 (10th Cir. 2014); Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, 627 F. App’x 682 (10th Cir. 2015); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Engida, 611 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2010); Hargrave v. Chief Asian, LLC, 479 F. App’x 827 (10th Cir. 2012); Surefoot LC v. Sure Foot Corp., 531 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012); Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009); Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008); Russo v. Ballard Med. Prod., 550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2008); Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014)

Back to top.

6. Raymond W. Gruender

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2004 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri; Thompson Coburn LLP; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri; Lewis Rice & Fingersh

Education

JD, Washington University (1987); MBA, Washington University (1987), BA, Washington University (1984)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 5 total (5 in favor of owner
Copyright 7 total (4 in favor of owner; 3 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 1 total (amicus brief on behalf of U.S. Copyright Office)
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Dryer v. Nat’l Football League, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016); First Nat. Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat. Bank S. Dakota, 679 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2012); Jones v. W. Plains Bank & Trust Co., 813 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2015); Kforce, Inc. v. Surrex Sols. Corp., 436 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006); Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prod., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014); Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Almgren, 685 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2012); Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 598 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2010); Strange Music, Inc. v. Anderson, 419 F. App’x 707 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Frison, 825 F.3d 437 (8th Cir.); United States v. Sweeney, 611 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 2010); Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011); Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Prods., 840 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2016); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC, 653 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2011)

Back to top.

7. Thomas M. Hardiman

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2007 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (2003 – 2007)

Prior Legal Experience

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Titus & McConomy LLP; Reed Smith LLP

Education

JD, Georgetown University Law Center (1990); BA, University of Notre Dame (1987)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 1 total (in favor of negligent law firm)
Trademark 6 total (5 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 5 total (3 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 3 total (1 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Ackourey v. Sonellas Custom Tailors, 573 F. App’x 208 (3d Cir. 2014); Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 540 F. App’x 103 (3d Cir. 2013); Avaya Inc., RP v. Telecom Labs, Inc., 838 F.3d 354 (3d Cir. 2016); Boyle v. United States, 391 F. App’x 212 (3d Cir. 2010); Brand Mktg. Grp. LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs., N.A., Inc., 801 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2015); Dow Chem. Canada, Inc. v. HRD Corp., 587 F. App’x 741 (3d Cir. 2014); FedEx Ground Package Sys. v. Applications Int’l Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26651 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2005); Fishkin v. Susquehanna Partners, G.P., 340 F. App’x 110 (3d Cir. 2009); Groupe SEB USA, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 774 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2014); Aslam v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 404 F. App’x 599 (3d Cir. 2010); Sims v. Viacom, Inc., 544 F. App’x 99 (3d Cir. 2013); Singer Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Diallo, 476 F. Supp. 2d 497 (W.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d, 575 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2009); William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009); World Entm’t Inc. v. Brown, 487 F. App’x 758 (3d Cir. 2012)

Back to top.

8. Raymond M. Kethledge

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC; Feeney Kellett Wienner & Bush PC; Counsel, Ford Motor Company; Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy (U.S. Supreme Court); Judiciary Counsel to U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI); Law Clerk to Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. (6th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Michigan Law School (1993); BA, University of Michigan (1989)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 4 total (3 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 1 total (in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 5 total (all on behalf of infringer/generic pharmaceutical company)
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret: 0

Cases: Kerr Corp. v. Freeman Mfg. & Supply Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6342 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009); Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC v. Marcos, 651 F. App’x 482 (6th Cir. 2016); L.F.P.IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 533 F. App’x 615 (6th Cir. 2013); Nagler v. Garcia, 370 F. App’x 678 (6th Cir. 2010); R.C. Olmstead, Inc., v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010); Taylor v. Thomas, 624 F. App’x 322 (6th Cir. 2015); In re Desloratadine Patent Litig., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2007); PDL BioPharma, Inc. v. Sun Pharm. Indus., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56948 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2007); Schering Corp. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41020 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2007); Sun Pharm. Indus. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35206 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2008); Sun Pharm. Indus. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46730 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2008)

Back to top.

9. Joan L. Larsen

 

Michigan Supreme Court (2015 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan Law School; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Visiting Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Sidley Austin LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Circuit)

Education

JD, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (1993); BA, University of Northern Iowa (1990)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Back to top.

10. Michael S. Lee

 

U.S. Senator (R-UT) (2011 – present)

Prior Legislative Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Howrey LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (U.S. Supreme Court); General Counsel to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman; Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Utah; Sidley Austin LLP; Law Clerk to Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (3rd Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge Dee Benson (D. Utah)

Intellectual Property Bills Co-Sponsored as U.S. Senator

Co-sponsored 6 bills involving intellectual property: 114th-S.2733, VENUE Act (introduced); 114th-S.1137, PATENT Act (introduced and voted yes); 113th-S.1720, Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 (introduced); 114th-S.328, A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United States, or any State or local government (introduced); 113th-S.1816, A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United States, or any State or local government (introduced); 113th-S.517, Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (became law)

Education

JD, Brigham Young University Law School (1997); BS, Brigham Young University (1994)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent N/A
Trademark N/A
Copyright N/A
Trade Secret N/A

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 1 total (on behalf of infringer Deutsche Bank)
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Case: Island Intellectual Prop. LLC v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 15212 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2012)

Back to top.

11. Thomas R. Lee

 

Utah Supreme Court (2010 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Rex & Maureen Rawlinson Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University; Howard, Phillips & Anderson LLC; Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, PC; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III (4th Circuit)

Scholarly Articles on Intellectual Property

Thomas R. Lee, et. al., An Empirical and Consumer Psychology Analysis of Trademark Distinctiveness, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 1033 (2009); Thomas R. Lee, et. al., Sophistication, Bridging the Gap, and the Likelihood of Confusion: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis, 98 Trademark Rep. 913 (2008); Thomas R. Lee, et. al., Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer, 57 Emory L.J. 575 (2008); Thomas R. Lee, Demystifying Dilution, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 859 (2004); Thomas R. Lee, Eldred v. Ashcroft and the (Hypothetical) Copyright Term Extension Act of 2020, 12 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (2003); Thomas R. Lee, et. al. “To Promote the Progress of Science”: The Copyright Clause and Congress’s Power to Extend Copyrights, 16 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2002); Thomas R. Lee, In Rem Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 75 Wash. L. Rev. 97 (2000) (proposing an “in rem” solution to the problem of cyberpiracy)

Education

JD, University of Chicago Law School (1991); BA, Brigham Young University (1988)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 3 total (all in favor of owner)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 27 total (all on behalf of owner)
Copyright 2 total (1 on behalf of owner; 1 on behalf of infringer)
Trade Secret 1 total (on behalf of infringer)

Cases: InnoSys, Inc. v. Mercer, 364 P.3d 1013 (Utah 2015); Legacy Res., Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc., 322 P.3d 683 (Utah 2013); USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 372 P.3d 629 (Utah 2016)

Back to top.

12. Edward M. Mansfield

 

Iowa Supreme Court (2011 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Iowa Court of Appeals (2009 – 2011)

Prior Legal Experience

Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach & Flynn, PC; Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP; Adjunct Professor, Drake University Law School; Law Clerk to Judge Patrick Higginbotham (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, Yale Law School (1982); BA, Harvard University (1978)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 1 total (on behalf of owner)
Trademark 1 total (on behalf of infringer)
Copyright 1 total (on behalf of infringer)
Trade Secret 1 total (on behalf of owner)

Cases: Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales del Centro S.A. de C.V., 384 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Iowa 2005), aff’d, 464 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Amerus Group Co. v. Ameris Bancorp, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32722 (S.D. Iowa May 22, 2006); Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131652 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016); Midwest Oilseeds, Inc. v. Limagrain Genetics Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28698 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 8, 2002)

Back to top.

13. Federico A. Moreno

 

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (1990 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (1987 – 1990); Miami-Dade County Court (1986 – 1987)

Prior Legal Experience

Thornton, Rothman & Moreno, PA; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Florida; Rollins, Peeples & Meadows, PA

Education

JD, University of Miami School of Law (1978); BA, University of Notre Dame (1974)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 3 (1 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Trademark 15 (11 in favor of owner; 4 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 9 (7 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 3 (2 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Biotanic, Inc. v. Vazquez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69048 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2010); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (S.D. Fla. 1998); Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 1999); Coach Servs. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67739 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2010); Davis v. Raymond, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68392 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2013); Erika Boom & Belly & Kicks I, LLC v. Rosebandits, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158528 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2013); CEyePartner, Inc. v. Kor Media Group LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98370 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2013); Fuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 2010); HFuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5298 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2011); Gapardis Health & Beauty, Inc. v. Pramil S.R.L. (ESAPHARMA), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98005 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2007); Gen. Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (S.D. Fla.); Glob. Innovation Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Acer Am. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hosp. Research Inst., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003); MHermosilla v. Octoscope Music, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129469 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2010); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. IFITNESS, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46824 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2012); Inmuno Vital, Inc. v. Golden Sun, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 1997); HLorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100985 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2010); Milk Money Music v. Oakland Park Entm’t Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121661 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2009); NPA Assocs., LLC v. Lakeside Portfolio Mgmt., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22805 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2014); Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Clarke Modet & Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Polvent v. Global Fine Arts, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130936 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2014); Promex, LLC v. Perez Distrib. Fresno, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90677 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2010); Setai Hotel Acquisitions, LLC v. Luxury Rentals Miami Beach, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171396 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2016); TNT USA, Inc v. TrafiExpress, S.A. de C.V., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2006); SValeant Int’l (Barb.) SRL v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193254 (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2012); Valeant Int’l (Barbados) SRL v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128742 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2011); Valoro, LLC v. Valero Energy Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110554 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014); Y.Z.Y., Inc. v. Azmere USA Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192674 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2013)

Back to top.

14. William H. Pryor, Jr.

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2004 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Visiting Professor, University of Alabama School of Law; Attorney General, Alabama; Deputy Attorney General, Alabama; Adjunct Professor, Samford University, Cumberland School of Law; Walston, Stabler, Wells, Anderson & Bains; Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal; Law Clerk to Judge John M. Wisdom (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, Tulane University School of Law (1987); BA, Northeast Louisiana University (1984)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 3 total (all in favor of owner)
Copyright 3 total (all in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: ADT LLC v. Alarm Prot. Tech. Florida, LLC, 646 F. App’x 781 (11th Cir. 2016); Genesys Software Sys. v. Ceridian Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20914 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016); Jysk Bed’N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2015); Latele TV, C.A. v. Telemundo Communs. Group, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20345 (11th Cir. Fla. May 26, 2016); Navellier v. Fla., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21473 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 1, 2016); Singleton v. Dean, 611 F. App’x 671 (11th Cir. 2015); Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes & of Malta v. Florida Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, The Ecumenical Order, 809 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2015)

Back to top.

15. Margaret A. Ryan

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (2006 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Wiley Rein LLP; Bartlit Beck Palenchar & Scott LLP; Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit); Judge Advocate, U.S. Marine Corps

Education

JD, Notre Dame Law School (1995); BA, Knox College (1985)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Back to top.

16. David R. Stras

 

Minnesota Supreme Court (2010 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Professor, University of Minnesota Law School; Faegre & Benson LLP; Sidley Austin Brown & Wood; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge Melvin Brunetti (9th Circuit)

Education

JD, University of Kansas School of Law (1999); MBA, University of Kansas (1999); BA, University of Kansas (1995)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 1 total (in favor of owner)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Case: Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp., 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014)

Back to top.

17. Diane S. Sykes

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2004 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Wisconsin Supreme Court (1999 – 2004); Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County (1992 – 1999)

Prior Legal Experience

Whyte Hirschboeck & Dudek SC; Law Clerk to Judge Terence T. Evans (E.D. Wis.)

Education

JD, Marquette University Law School (1984); BS, Northwestern University (1980)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 4 total (3 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Trademark 5 total (2 in favor of owner; 3 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 8 total (4 in favor of owner; 4 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 2 total (all in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Allan Block Corp. v. Cty. Materials Corp., 512 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2008); Bell v. Lantz, 825 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016); Cent. Mfg., Inc. v. Brett, 492 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007); Chicago Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014); Coach, Inc. v. DI DA Imp. & Exp., Inc., 630 F. App’x 632 (7th Cir. 2016); Consumer Health Info. Corp. v. Amylin Pharm., Inc., 819 F.3d 992 (7th Cir.); Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 658 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011); Furkin v. Smikun, 237 F. App’x 86 (7th Cir. 2007); Georgia-Pac. Consumer Prod. LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2011); Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 769 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2014); Hecny Transp., Inc. v. Chu, 430 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2005); Hyson USA, Inc. v. Hyson 2U, Ltd., 821 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2016); Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist., 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011); Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2008); nClosures Inc. v. Block & Co., 770 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2014); Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc., 586 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2009); Specht v. Google Inc., 747 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2014); Waterloo Furniture Components, Ltd. v. Haworth, Inc., 467 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006); Wisconsin Alumni Research Found. v. Xenon Pharm., Inc., 591 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2010)

Back to top.

18. Amul R. Thapar

 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (2008 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Kentucky; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Ohio; General Counsel, Equalfooting.com; Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia; Trial Advocacy Instructor, Georgetown University Law Center; Adjunct Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School; Adjunct Professor, University of Virginia School of Law; Adjunct Professor, Northern Kentucky University, Chase College of Law; Williams & Connolly; Squire Sanders & Dempsey; Adjunct Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Law Clerk to Judge Nathaniel R. Jones (6th Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge S. Arthur Spiegel (S.D. Ohio)

Education

JD, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law (1994); BS, Boston College (1991)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 1 total (in favor of infringer)
Copyright 1 total (in favor of owner)
Trade Secret 1 total (in favor of owner)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015); Fastenal Co. v. Crawford, 609 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Ky. 2009); Rich & Rich P’ship v. Poetman Records USA, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

Back to top.

19. Timothy M. Tymkovich

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2003 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Hale Hackstaff Tymkovich, LLP; Colorado Solicitor General; Davis Graham & Stubbs; Bradley Campbell Carney & Madsen; Law Clerk to Justice William H. Erickson (Colo. Supreme Court)

Education

JD, University of Colorado School of Law (1982); BA, Colorado College (1979)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 1 total (in favor of owner)
Trademark 5 total (4 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)
Copyright 6 total (1 in favor of owner; 5 in favor of infringer)
Trade Secret 2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Cases: Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006); Celebrity Attractions, Inc. v. Okla. City Pub. Prop. Auth., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15244 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016); Cellport Sys., Inc. v. Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG, 762 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 2014); Enter. Mgmt. Ltd., Inc. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2013); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005); Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 311 F. App’x 136 (10th Cir. 2009); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2014); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16055 (10th Cir. May 26, 2015); Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014); Team Tires Plus, Ltd. v. Tires Plus, Inc., 394 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2005); Tomelleri v. MEDL Mobile, Inc., 657 F. App’x 793 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. Shengyang Zhou, 717 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2013); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., 516 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2008)

Back to top.

20. Don R. Willett

 

Supreme Court of Texas (2005 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

None

Prior Legal Experience

Deputy Texas Attorney General; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy; Special Assistant to the President and Director of Law and Policy, President George W. Bush; Domestic Policy and Special Projects Adviser, Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential Campaign; Director of Research and Special Projects, Governor George W. Bush; Haynes & Boone, LLP; Law Clerk to Judge Jerre S. Williams (5th Circuit)

Education

JD, Duke University School of Law (1992); BBA, Baylor University (1988)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 1 (dissenting in favor of state-court jurisdiction for patent negligence suits – a view ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court)
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

 

Case: Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011)

Back to top.

21. Robert P. Young, Jr.

 

Michigan Supreme Court (1999 – present)

Prior Judicial Experience

Michigan Court of Appeals (1995 – 1999)

Prior Legal Experience

General Counsel, AAA Michigan; Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

Education

JD, Harvard Law School (1977); BA, Harvard College (1974)

Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

Patent 0
Trademark 1 total (in favor of owner)
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

Patent 0
Trademark 0
Copyright 0
Trade Secret 0

Case: Citizens Ins. Co. v. Pro-Seal Serv. Grp., Inc., 477 Mich. 75 (2007)

Back to top.

[1] Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School. The author would like to thank Intellectual Ventures for its invaluable research support.

Categories
Innovation Software Patent

Trading Technologies v. CQG: Federal Circuit Gets One Right On Software Patents

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"The Federal Circuit issued another important opinion yesterday affirming that software is a patentable invention in the United States. In Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., the court determined that a graphical user interface (GUI) for a commodities trading platform was patent eligible. Ten law professors, including CPIP Senior Scholars and others, filed an amicus brief in support of Trading Technologies, explaining that its GUI patents were a patentable inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act and that this is exactly the type of twenty-first-century innovation the patent system is intended to promote and secure. (CPIP’s Adam Mossoff was one of the co-authors of the amicus brief as well.)

The accused infringer in this case argued that Trading Technologies’ two patents were unpatentable because they were an “abstract idea” under § 101 of the Patent Act. This opinion arose from the infringer raising this defense in response to Trading Technologies’ lawsuit against it for patent infringement. Despite the defendant’s arguments that the patents merely broadly referred to the abstract idea of “commodities trading,” both of the GUI patents describe technological improvements in the interface that commodities traders use. The court discussed how the inventors’ specific improvements in this GUI program increases the efficiency and accuracy of trading—a real-world, valuable function in a twenty-first-century technological innovation. Thus, these patents cover inventions that are more than just an abstract idea.

As described by the law professors’ amicus brief, the defendant’s broad argument about the “abstract idea” exclusion in patent law would eviscerate the patent system. Any invention can be described at a high level of abstraction, and thus an overly broad understanding of “abstract idea” would invalidate patents on thousands of legitimate patents on valid inventions, such as the telephone, GPS, typewriters, and optical discs. In this case, the court properly recognized that this framing of the “abstract idea” rule in patent law necessarily incorrect. Hopefully, this decision will stem the tide of massive invalidations of patented innovation, as more courts recognize the value in software inventions and that patents are important for promoting and securing this innovation.

Categories
Economic Study Innovation

Creative Upstarts and Startups: How IP Creates Opportunities and Opens Doors

the word "inspiration" typed on a typewriterThis is the first in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference, “Intellectual Property & Global Prosperity.“ The conference was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University on October 6-7, 2016. Videos of the conference panels and keynote address, as well as other materials, are available on the conference website.

The opening panel of CPIP’s 2016 Fall Conference examined how intellectual property (IP) creates opportunities for startups and creative upstarts. Unfortunately, IP policy debates often refer to a misguided notion that intellectual property hinders innovation and creativity, especially among smaller businesses. The panelists, Prof. Deepak Hegde (NYU Stern School of Business), Brian Detwiler (Cobro Ventures, Inc.), Prof. Jerry Liu (University of San Francisco School of Law), and Antigone Peyton (Cloudigy Law, PLLC), illustrated how this notion ignores the fact that intellectual property provides incentives and security for startups and small businesses entering the market and enables returns on investments.

Prof. Deepak Hegde discussed a study he undertook to measure the extent that patents benefit startups. Patents provide incentives for innovation by affording the right to exclude others from making, selling, or otherwise using the patented invention. This incentive is ensured by increasing the cost of imitations, while facilitating licensing and access to venture capital by innovators. At the same time, there is a concern that patents are not as effective for smaller entrepreneurs because patents take too long to issue (three years on average), they are costly to obtain ($20,000 in patent application costs on average), and are expensive to enforce once infringed. The study, however, shows that timely patents do substantially benefit startups.

Hegde noted that measuring the causal effect of patent rights on startups is often an empirically challenging task due to the lack of complete data on issues like rejected patent applications, firm outcomes, and correlations between patenting and startup success. However, Hegde was able to show a positive causal relationship between approval of the first patent application and various measures of startup success such as persistent employment growth and higher sales.

For instance, Hegde found that approval of the first patent application by a medium-sized firm with eight employees leads to three more employees (on average) hired within the five years following approval. Likewise, a medium-sized firm with $4.3M in revenue has $2.3M higher sales over the five years following approval of its first patent. Moreover, approval of the first patent application leads to a 66.4% increase in the number of subsequent applications, a 48.4% growth in the number of approved patents, and a 68.5% increase in the number of total citations.

On the other hand, Hegde discovered that delays in the patent approval process reduce sales growth, with each year of delay reducing growth by 28.4% over the five years following approval. Delays also reduce the quality and quantity of subsequent innovations, with a 14% decrease in number of subsequent applications and a 8% reduction in number of total citations. Even more so, a five-year approval delay is comparable in effect to not granting a patent at all. Finally, Hegde showed that patent approvals causally increase the probability of venture capital funding by 57%, and thus, help to set startups on a growth path.

Brian Detwiler discussed the challenges startups face from a more practical point of view. Specifically, Detwiler focused on two startups that Cobro Ventures is currently managing. Measures of success differ among the two. For a health & fitness center, the issue is profitability, and for a tech startup, the concern is typically acquisition or an initial public offering. Because Cobro Ventures is a self-funded company, it does not encounter some of the funding challenges as other startups. It does, however, face the same intellectual property issues as others in the industry.

The critical issue for a startup in the fitness industry, Detwiler noted, is building a strong brand identity to distinguish itself from other companies in the crowded marketplace. CrossFit is one good example of how a strong brand makes a business successful: CrossFit generates its revenues solely from licensing its brand out to gyms and fitness centers, without operating any of its own.

Tech startups, continued Detwiler, are more invested in the value of their patents because patent due diligence is a major component of any tech acquisition. Bundles of patents and open continuations are what acquirers value the most. The former allows acquisition of all patents associated with a particular technology; the latter provides opportunities to expand claims to pending patents down the road. A patent by itself does not necessarily guarantee the merit of a particular technology, but it certainly shows that at least the Patent Office believes that the particular technology was unique in the marketplace at the time of issuance. Patents can also be used as weapons in protecting a company’s interests and as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Detwiler stated that trademark registration is equally accessible to startups and big corporations because it is inexpensive (the filing fee is about $300 per class of goods/services), easy to file (only 10 minutes), and fast (around 3-4 months). With patents, the biggest challenge is getting a notice of allowance. There is a common misconception that all patent applications have the same value. This may be true for big corporations that file thousands of patent applications each year. But for startups, which usually have only two or three applications that they depend on, each such application is incredibly important, and if rejected, causes a lot of frustration.

Even though startups have more executive involvement in the patent approval process and are more willing to accept reasonably narrow claims at the outset, Detwiler said the patent examination process is still too lengthy. To get the best of it, he suggested that applicants explain in plain terms what they want to protect, examiners explain in plain terms what they found in their prior art searches, and both sides explore how to capture the claimed invention.

Prof. Jerry Liu talked about the study he undertook on market incentives and intrinsic motivations in the creative industries, particularly in the Chinese music industry. He focused his study on how online piracy affects the music industry and how real-world artists respond to copyright incentives. According to Liu, the Chinese music industry is significantly underdeveloped as compared to the United States. While the overall Chinese economy is fast approaching the size of the U.S. economy, the Chinese music industry represents only 1.5 % of the U.S. music industry.

Liu found that this outcome has little to do with the overall economic environment in China. Even though the music industry experienced a substantial decline since 2005, the economy as a whole enjoyed about 10% of annual growth. Nor is this a consequence of the infamous censorship system in China. Unlike the music industry, the book industry in China has demonstrated growth by 129% for the last decade. The likely reason for this difference is that the piracy rate in the music market is much higher than it is in the book market.

Empirical data collected by Liu establishes the correlation between online piracy and the Chinese music industry downturn. Online piracy surged in 2005, the very same year when music production started to decline significantly. As a result of such widespread piracy, music products have become undervalued among consumers. Only 25.4% of Chinese consumers are willing to pay for music, and only 5.9% actually pay for music. Online piracy has also caused a significant imbalance in the development of the digital music market. Notably, the Chinese government itself recently recognized that uncontrolled piracy has devastated the digital music marketplace.

In China, Liu said that online music services, including downloads and streaming, account only for 1% of the total digital market, while mobile sales (e.g., ringtones) hold 99% market share. But only 32.6% of music consumers are accessing music on their mobile devices, while 96.8% of users access music online. This shows that Chinese consumers pay the least for the most popular channel of music consumption. Additionally, online piracy affects business models in the music industry. For instance, record labels have moved away from their traditional role as investors. They are now working with new artists either on a self-funded basis (labels only provide services and artists bear all the risks of investment) or under so-called “360-degree deals” (labels sign artists for long-term contracts and retain more control over their careers and even their personal lives).

Finally, Liu highlighted the paradox of intrinsic motivations: 92% of the surveyed artists named emotional benefits as their incentive to create, and 97% of those artists also recognized the importance of economic benefits for creation. Importantly, many artists started their career in music not because of the money, but many of them also gave it up because of the money. In this way, copyright protection may provide a powerful incentive for artists to create in that it preserves their artistic freedom while ensuring a decent level of living and a fair return of production costs.

Antigone Peyton talked about strategies for tech companies to protect their assets. In this regard, she noted the importance of contracts at the early stages of the product development cycle. From the copyright prospective, contracts help to establish whether hired developers are employees or independent contractors and to ensure that their rights are assigned to the company. Without a written, explicit assignment of a copyright, a company may get in trouble down the road. For instance, when registering its work with the Copyright Office, enforcing its rights, or selling its assets to a third party.

Peyton stressed that companies working with the government need to understand what intellectual property rights they are giving away and to avoid assigning away all of their rights. Government contracts often include IP provisions that provide the government with a fully-paid license and allow it to bring in another contractor to continue the job. Another important aspect involves privacy policies, especially in the cyber security area. Companies that innovate in this sector usually bring people and know-how to the table, but not necessarily anything that is patentable. To protect its know-how, such a company should consider signing non-compete agreements with the people working with the company.

The barriers to entry for starting up a company in the software industry are small, said Peyton. But that means there are a lot of such companies out there trying to compete with each other for market space. To this end, companies need to think carefully about brand development and brand recognition, as well as how to protect their markets from competitors.

Peyton noted that if a company believes it has patentable subject matter, it should consider filing a patent application early on. However, patenting is the most expensive IP regime and usually requires the help of a patent professional (even with provisional applications). Patents are particularly critical in the biotech, chemical, and pharma industries that are money-intensive endeavors, which largely depend on attracting venture capital investment as early as possible. Generally, tech companies do not need to choose between copyrights and patents, and they may pursue both options to protect their software. But investing in copyrights and brand development is a relatively inexpensive way to start out and build an IP portfolio. Depending on the technology used, trade secret protection may also be an option for tech startups.

Together, the four panelists highlighted how intellectual property has a critical value for startups and small companies in the creative and innovative industries. Not only does IP ignite their businesses, but it also brings opportunities for future growth through sales, licensing, or acquisition. A strong IP portfolio is an invaluable asset, and building it early allows companies to open more doors.

Categories
Innovation Uncategorized

CPIP, USPTO, & Lemelson Center Host “Great Inventors” Panel Discussion at American History Museum

Logos for The Lemelson Center, the USPTO, and CPIP

On February 16, 2017, CPIP hosted a panel discussion, America as a Place of Innovation: Great Inventors and the Patent System, at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. The event was co-hosted by the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The panel explored the history of innovation and the broader social, political, and legal context in which it occurred in the late nineteenth century in the United States. The panel addressed the historical role of patents, research-intensive startups, litigation, and licensing in an important period of disruptive innovation.

Prof. Ernest Freeberg, University of Tennessee, discussed Thomas Edison and how the invention of the electric light impacted American culture. Prof. Christopher Beauchamp, Brooklyn Law School, discussed Alexander Graham Bell and the legal disputes that erupted out of Bell’s telephone patent. Prof. Adam Mossoff, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, discussed early American innovation by Charles Goodyear, Samuel Morse, and Joseph Singer.

The panel discussion was moderated by Arthur Daemmrich, Director of the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. Alan Marco, Chief Economist at the United States Patent and Trademark Office delivered the closing remarks.

The video of the event is available here, and the event program is available here.