Tag: President Trump

Categories
Copyright

Proposed Open Access Regulation is a Solution in Search of a Problem

a lightbulb shatteringEarlier this week, a coalition of over 125 publishers and non-profit scientific societies joined the Association of American Publishers (AAP) in a letter to the White House expressing serious concerns with a proposed Administration policy that would override intellectual property rights and threaten the advancement of scientific scholarship and innovation. In a flawed attempt to advance open access goals, the policy would require the free and immediate distribution of any proprietary articles that report on research funded by a government agency. But overwhelming opposition by dozens of the most esteemed medical societies and research organizations reveals an ill-conceived and hasty proposal that would not only disregard long-established intellectual property rights, but would also adversely affect U.S. jobs, research, innovation, and global competitiveness.

Like other open access mandate proposals in the past, there has been no evidence offered that the untested models are viable or sustainable or that there are systematic failures in the current scholarly publishing market. In a policy brief published in 2017, CPIP identified similar proposals as nothing but solutions in search of a problem—clear examples of regulatory overreach lacking any empirical evidence of why they are needed and how they would be beneficial.

Proposed Policy Eliminates Any Opportunity to Commercialize

Proprietary articles that report on federally funded research—such as those published in leading medical and scientific journals—are currently subject to public access mandates that require them to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after publication. These mandates are meant to balance the interests of the public in accessing these works with those of publishers and non-profit organizations that bear the costs of producing them. It’s a framework that, while not perfect, reflects the Constitutional objective of securing exclusive rights to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

Notwithstanding this long-understood trade-off between access and exclusivity, the proposed policy would require the immediate and free distribution of journal articles reporting on any amount of federally funded research. If implemented, the proposal would deny publishers any opportunity to recoup the investments made in development of these labor and cost-intensive works, and many journals and research organizations would simply no longer be able to operate. While the proposal may be rooted in a desire to benefit the public, its complete eradication of the already short 12-month embargo reveals a troubling unawareness of existing markets, the critical role of publishers, and the value of intellectual property.

Untested Model Reflects Unawareness of Creative Ecosystems

Unfortunately, proposals like this reflect a belief by some that in the digital age publishers are merely intermediaries who restrict access to works. Those who promote this narrative also tend to favor short-term access and distribution over sustainable industries, long term R&D, and free markets, but their efforts to impose sweeping open access provisions reveal an ignorance of the inner workings and contributions of the publishing industry.

The reality is that even when federal funding exists for underlying research, significant investments are required by non-profit journals and publishers to translate the research into high-quality articles. These organizations must dedicate time and resources to the review and selection of articles, management of the peer review process, editing, curating, distributing, and long-term stewardship.[i] The publishing industry employs thousands of Americans to carry out these tasks, and they fund their efforts at no cost to taxpayers. Additionally, the sale of journal subscription in hundreds of foreign countries contributes significantly to the U.S. economy and trade balance.

Perhaps most disturbing is that those promoting the proposal seem unaware or unconcerned with the potential devastating impact the policy would have on publishing and scientific communities and America’s leadership in research and innovation. Stakeholders representing the industries that stand to be most affected by an unfettered and unproven open access policy have been left out of discussions, resulting in an ill-considered and inequitable proposal. Furthermore, the fact that the details of Administration policies are sometimes not disclosed until they are announced and implemented raises serious questions about the development of a policy that could have such a significant impact on industries, jobs, and the U.S. economy.

Strong Opposition to an Unsound Policy

Taking into account these numerous problems, it’s not surprising that stakeholders have now joined together to voice their opposition to the proposed policy. Venerable institutions such as the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the New England Journal of Medicine are just a few of the dozens of scientific, medical, and publishing organizations to challenge the proposal. In addition to these stakeholder organizations, Senator and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Thom Tillis recently voiced his concerns with the proposal in a letter to Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, and to White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney. He writes:

If the current policy is changed—particularly without benefit of public hearings and stakeholder input—it could amount to significant government interference in an otherwise well-functioning private marketplace that gives doctors, scientific researchers and others options about how they want to publish these important contributions to science.

As Senator Tillis and others point out, the proposed policy has been put forward with no input from stakeholders or public comment. No evidence has been presented that a revised policy is needed, nor has the existing marketplace been shown to be dysfunctional.

While the wide distribution of and access to scholarly articles is critical to advancing research and education, it shouldn’t be so overvalued as to disregard all that goes into producing them and the associated intellectual property rights. To do so would represent a short-term fix to a problem that has not been proven to exist and result in untold damage to publishing industries, the economy, and ultimately the public.

[i] For a detailed account of the value-add services provided scholarly publishers, see Professor Adam Mossoff’s article How Copyright Drives Innovation: A Case Study of Scholarly Publishing in the Digital World.

Categories
FTC Innovation

Unverified Theory Continues to Inform FTC’s Policies Toward Patent Owners

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"The Federal Trade Commission’s unfair competition case against Qualcomm, Inc., has now concluded. The parties gave their closing arguments on Tuesday, January 29, and all that remains is Judge Lucy Koh’s ruling. To prevail, the FTC needed to demonstrate actual, quantifiable harm. It completely failed to do so.

The FTC’s complaint charged Qualcomm with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its alleged monopoly position as a supplier of certain baseband processors (chips that manage cellular communications in mobile products). Specifically, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm engaged in “exclusionary conduct” through a “no license, no chips” policy in which it supplied CDMA[1] and Premium LTE chips[2] only on the condition that cell phone manufacturers agreed to Qualcomm’s license terms. The FTC claimed that Qualcomm’s conduct reduced competitors’ ability and incentive to innovate and raised prices paid by consumers for cellular devices.

In support of this position, the FTC offered Carl Shapiro, an Economics Professor from Berkeley, as an expert witness. Shapiro argued that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy gave it the market power to demand “supra-FRAND”[3] royalties. He claimed these royalties harmed competition by raising rivals’ costs, weakening them as competitors, and deterring them from doing R&D. Shapiro asserted that Qualcomm had monopoly power over CDMA and Premium LTE markets through 2016.

There are (at least) two glaring errors regarding the FTC’s and Shapiro’s arguments. First, the relevant market definitions for “CDMA” and “Premium LTE” chips are fatally flawed. Regarding CDMA, the FTC defined the relevant market solely as CDMA chips, yet the market includes both CDMA and WCDMA[4] chips, with WCDMA selling 5x more chips than CDMA. Regarding Premium LTE, there is no “premium” chip market separate from other mobile chips. What the FTC and Shapiro define as “premium” actually represents the end-result of a normal product evolution where newer, more innovative chips are incorporated first into higher-end devices. And even if one considers only Premium LTE chips, Qualcomm had a first-mover advantage because it invented the technology. A first-mover advantage is not an antitrust violation. The result of both flawed market definitions is an economic theoretical shell-game to divert attention from the fact that there is simply no evidence of harm to the properly defined actual market.[5]

And this leads to the second and even more critical point: the FTC presented no real-world evidence of harm to competitors or consumers from Qualcomm’s alleged exclusionary conduct. If R&D had been deterred by Qualcomm’s licensing practices, as Shapiro argued, he should have been able to identify at least one actual example.[6] Under his theory, the lack of ongoing R&D and harm to competitors should have resulted in an increasing number of inferior cell phones provided by a decreasing number of companies. To the contrary, more and more competitors have been entering the chip market with more and more innovations as cellular technology has advanced from 3G to 4G. Cell phone quality has dramatically increased over time, without concomitant quality-adjusted price increases.[7]

Notwithstanding the flawed market definition and lack of harm, the FTC has misconstrued the underlying basis for Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” licensing policy, teeing it up as objectively anticompetitive and onerous. Yet, Qualcomm’s policy simply seeks to prevent “patent holdout” as a legitimate business strategy. Without this policy, device manufacturers could build phones using Qualcomm’s chips, then simply refuse to pay Qualcomm for its telecommunications patents. Qualcomm’s only recourse would be to sue for patent infringement, while the device manufacturers continue to profit from use of the chips. The “no-license, no chips” policy ensures that device manufacturers negotiate necessary patent licenses before receiving chips to build phones.

Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Makan Delrahim, has stated that condemning this kind of licensing practice, in isolation, as an antitrust violation, while ignoring equal incentives for patent holdout, “risks creating ‘false positive’ errors of over-enforcement that would discourage valuable innovation.” (Delrahim also recently criticized the FTC’s entire case saying that disputes about patent licensing should not be decided by antitrust law.)

The FTC, its experts, and its industry witnesses, however, are basically advocating for patent holdout as a legally legitimate, even preferable, strategy for dealing with patent owners like Qualcomm. Professor Shapiro’s model, in particular, advanced patent holdout in lieu of up-front patent licensing. Shapiro would require a patent owner to wait and then sue for infringement as a prerequisite to any license negotiations. But forcing the patent owner to pursue judicial recourse through a time-consuming and costly patent infringement suit leverages the cost of litigation to artificially decrease the ultimate reward to the patentee.

At the close of this case, one is left wondering why. Why did the FTC pursue a “midnight” filing at the tail end of the Obama Administration, just days before President Trump took office? Why did the FTC pursue the case over Commissioner Ohlhausen’s strong dissent in which she argued that the case was based on a flawed legal theory “that lacks economic and evidentiary support” and that “by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide”? And finally, why is the FTC attempting to cripple Qualcomm in the developing 5G technological space in favor of China’s Huawei[8], which will result in actual, quantifiable harm to the U.S.’s competitive advantage over China?

[1] CDMA, which stands for “code-division multiple access,” permits several transmitters to send information over a single communication channel and is a second generation (2G) network used in mobile device.

[2] LTE, which stands for “long term evolution,” is a fourth generation (4G) standard for high-speed wireless communication used in mobile devices.

[3] FRAND stands for “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.”

[4] WCDMA stands for “wide band code division multiple access.” It is a third generation (3G) network used in mobile devices.

[5] This is the same game the FTC played in the 1990s with Microsoft where the FTC defined the relevant market as operating systems for IBM compatible PCs, but that argument only worked if one excluded Apple, Linux, and other operating systems. These type of games about defining the relevant market are common in the high-tech context, and the FTC is repeating it here.

[7] “Several empirical studies demonstrate that the observed pattern in high-tech industries, especially in the smartphone industry, is one of constant lower quality-adjusted prices, increased entry and competition, and higher performance standards.” See: https://cip2.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/02/Letter-to-DOJ-Supporting-Evidence-Based-Approach-to-Antitrust-Enforcement-of-IP.pdf.

[8] One also wonders why the FTC relied so heavily on Huawei’s testimony in this case given the Trump Administration’s repeated concerns about this company culminating in the Department of Justice’s recent 10-count indictment against Huawei for theft of trade secrets, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice.

Categories
Innovation

CPIP Scholars Join Open Letter Providing IP Guidance for New Administration and Congress

U.S. Capitol buildingThe Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and several of its Senior Scholars are proud to support an open letter released today providing intellectual property guidelines for the Trump administration and the 115th Congress. CPIP Executive Director Matthew Barblan, Co-Founders Adam Mossoff and Mark Schultz, and Senior Scholars Christopher Holman, Kristen Osenga, and Sean O’Connor join a group of legal and policy experts advocating for an effective IP system that supports America’s world-leading innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship.

The letter provides the following guidelines for the new administration and Congress:

  • Intellectual Property Rights Are Grounded in the Constitution
  • Intellectual Property Rights Are a Fundamental Property Right Deserving the Same Respect as Physical Property
  • Intellectual Property Rights Promote Free Speech and Expression
  • Intellectual Property Rights are Vital to Job Growth & Economic Competitiveness
  • Intellectual Property Rights Must Be Protected Internationally Through Effective IP Provisions in Trade Agreements
  • Intellectual Property Rights Are Integral to Consumer Protection and National Security
  • Intellectual Property Rights Must Be Respected and Protected on the Internet
  • Voluntary Initiatives to Address Intellectual Property Theft Are Positive

The signatories encourage the new administration and Congress to “consider these guidelines as you review and discuss existing laws and regulations governing IP. The Founding Father understood that by protecting the proprietary rights of artists, authors, entrepreneurs, innovators, and inventors, they were promoting the greater public welfare. The continued protection of these fundamental rights is essential to American innovation and competitiveness.”

To download the open letter, please click here.

Categories
Copyright Copyright Licensing

SONA and Songwriters Fight DOJ’s Misguided 100% Licensing Rule

Things are heating up in the lawsuit filed by Songwriters of North America and three of its members (SONA) challenging the new gloss of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the 75-year-old consent decrees that govern the licensing practices of ASCAP and BMI, the two largest performance rights organizations (PROs). SONA sued the DOJ on September 13, 2016, questioning the DOJ’s reinterpretation of the consent decrees to require the PROs to license all of the works in their repertories on a 100% basis. As reported by Billboard yesterday, CPIP Senior Scholar & Director, Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars is assisting SONA’s legal team at Gerard Fox Law PC in the litigation.

After completing a two-year review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees, the DOJ issued a statement on August 4, 2016, concluding that the decrees require the two PROs to offer only “full-work licenses.” On this view, the PROs would not be able to continue licensing the fractional interests in the musical compositions owned by the songwriters they represent. As the U.S. Copyright Office noted in early-2016, such fractional licensing is a “longstanding practice of the music industry.” Nevertheless, the DOJ claimed that the change “should not meaningfully disrupt the status quo in the licensing of public performance rights.”

This assertion was immediately challenged by the PROs. ASCAP President Paul Williams issued a statement that same day vowing to work with BMI “to overturn the DOJ’s decision” in both Congress and the courts. BMI filed a letter with District Judge Louis L. Stanton, who oversees BMI’s consent decree, announcing its intention to seek a declaration that the decree “does not require 100% licensing.” Six weeks later, Judge Stanton issued an opinion declaring that BMI’s consent decree “neither bars fractional licensing nor requires full-work licensing.” The victory was celebrated as a win for songwriters, and both ASCAP and BMI issued statements praising the decision. The DOJ has since appealed the issue to the Second Circuit.

In its complaint filed in the District of Columbia, SONA argues that the DOJ’s 100% licensing rule violates songwriters’ due process rights, both substantive and procedural, under the Fifth Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. Calling the DOJ’s rule “a dramatic departure from the status quo,” SONA points out that it will “limit and undermine the creative and economic activities” of songwriters by forcing them to “undertake the burdensome and potentially costly process of revisiting and amending their core business practices, private contracts, and collaborative relationships” in order to comply.

Arguing that the case should be dismissed, the DOJ challenges the standing of SONA to even invoke the court’s jurisdiction. The DOJ claims that any harm caused by the consent decrees is too speculative and remote to create an actual case or controversy, and it suggests that no songwriters have been deprived of any protected liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause. In its opposition brief filed this past Tuesday, SONA strongly opposes that contention:

[P]laintiffs have alleged and will prove at trial that [the DOJ’s] new rule has caused immediate injuries and will cause imminent injuries to each plaintiff, thus establishing standing. Plaintiffs have also pleaded facts sufficient to show that the government’s action is interfering with their freedom to contract, freedom of association, and freedom of speech, and that the government has taken their valuable intellectual-property rights without compensation, thus violating plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due-process rights.

Admonishing the DOJ’s “casual disregard for the welfare and livelihoods of America’s songwriters,” SONA points out that, under the DOJ’s new rule, songwriters will:

  • Be deprived of the ability to choose the PRO that will license their shares of coauthored works;
  • Be required to withdraw works from representation by ASCAP or BMI;
  • Have songs that they must license outside of the PRO system;
  • Need to cede administrative control over their copyrights, including the right to collect royalties, to unaffiliated third parties;
  • Be compelled to renegotiate existing contractual relationships on a song-by-song basis;
  • Be forced to consider whether they should decline to collaborate with creators who are not members of the same PRO; and
  • Have reason to consider withdrawing from ASCAP or BMI altogether.

    • Now that President Trump is in office, there is new leadership at the DOJ. Jeff Sessions was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney General earlier today, and Brent Snyder took over as acting director of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division less than three weeks ago. Just last week, the DOJ asked the Second Circuit for an extra 90 days to file its opening brief in its appeal of Judge Stanton’s ruling that the BMI consent decree does not require 100% licensing. According to the DOJ, the “requested extension is necessary to allow new leadership in the Department of Justice adequate time to familiarize themselves with the issues.” Perhaps there is hope that the DOJ will discontinue its misguided push for a 100% licensing rule that will inevitably threaten the livelihoods of songwriters.

    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.