Category: Intellectual Property

The Fate of the Music Industry is Jeopardized by Copyright Decision

The National Law Review recently published an article by April L. Besl of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding the Music Industry and Copyrights:

Decision Impacts Billions of Dollars in Royalties

A recent decision out of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could have lasting implications on all Copyright Royalty Board rate determinations since 2004. In the case Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board, a unanimous panel at the D.C. Circuit found that the structure of the Royalty Board was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.

Intercollegiate Broadcasting is an association of “noncommercial” webcasters offering transmission of digitally recorded music over the internet at high schools and college campuses. These broadcasts constitute “performances” under the Copyright Act and thus require royalty payment to the song owners. When parties cannot agree upon the license terms, they can go before the Royalty Board for a determination of a fair royalty rate. Established in 2004, the Royalty Board is composed of three judges appointed to six-year terms by the Librarian of Congress.

After being unable to come to terms as to a royalty rate with a non-profit clearinghouse for musicians called Soundexchange, Inc., the parties took their dispute before the Royalty Board who issued a final determination setting a rate Intercollegiate would have to pay. Intercollegiate appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit arguing, among other things, the unconstitutionality of the Royalty Board’s structure under the Appointments Clause.

Specifically, Intercollegiate argued that the Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”) exercise significant ratemaking authority, without any effective means of control by a superior which qualified them as a “principal” officer under the Appointments Clause. All “principal” officers must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, which made the appointment of the CRJs unconstitutional.

The D.C. Circuit agreed, first finding that CRJ decisions can have considerable consequences that can affect the fates of entire industries and implicate billions of dollars in royalties. The panel also noted that CRJ decisions not only impact traditional forms of music media (e.g. CDs and vinyl) but also emerging technologies including digital downloads, non-commercial broadcasting, and certain cable transmissions. In light of the significant authority, the fact that the Librarian of Congress could not affect decisions of the CRJ’s or even remove them from office made them “principal” officers under the Appointments Clause.

Rather than wait for Congress to act, the D.C. Circuit chose to nullify language from the Copyright Act that originally had barred the Librarian from removing the Judges from office, thus making them “inferior” officers. In so doing, the D.C. Circuit held that the rate determination of the CRJs for Intercollegiate was vacated due to the unconstitutional nature of the Royalty Board’s structure.

Whether or not this has opened the door for entities to challenge rate decisions made by the Royalty Board as invalid since 2004 is still up for debate but copyright owners and broadcasters should certainly be prepared for a potential fight in the near future.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Postal Service Must Pay Reasonable Royalty for Copyright Infringement

Considering the proper measure of damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the trial court’s damages award and remanded to the Court of Federal Claims to determine the fair value of a license for the full scope of the Postal Service’s infringing use.  Gaylord v. U.S., Case No. 11-5097 (Fed. Cir., May, 14,2012) (Moore,  J.).

Frank Gaylord is the creator and holder of a copyright interest in “The Column,” a group of nineteen stainless steel sculptures representing a platoon of solders.  “The Column” is the centerpiece of the Korean War Veterans’ Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.  In 2002, the United States Postal Service issued a postal stamp and sold retail goods commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Korean War, featuring a photograph of “The Column.”  In 2006, Mr. Gaylord sued the United States under § 1498(b), which waives sovereign immunity for copyright infringement.  In a previous appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the Postal Service was liable for copyright infringement and identified three general classes of infringing items: stamps that were used to send mail, unused stamps retained by collectors and retail goods featuring an image of the stamp.  In the prior case, the Federal Circuit remanded for damages.

On remand, the Court of Federal Claims rejected Mr. Gaylord’s claim for a 10 percent royalty on about $30.2 million in revenue allegedly generated by the Postal Service, as well as his claim for prejudgment interest.  In determining damages, the lower court employed a “zone of reasonableness” standard to determine the copyright owner’s actual damages.  Applying this framework, the lower court determined that the “zone of reasonableness” for the value of a license on Mr. Gaylord’s copyright was between $1,500 and $5,000 based on evidence of prior postal services licenses.

The Federal Circuit rejected the lower court’s approach and adopted the same approach to damages under § 1498(b) that its predecessor court adopted for damages under § 1498(a), which waives sovereign immunity for patent infringement.  The Federal Circuit determined that the “reasonable and entire compensation” provided for (in both §§ 1498(a) and (b)), entitled a copyright holder compensatory damages only, not to non-compensatory damages.

In this case, the Court determined that the appropriate measure of compensatory damages under § 504 of the Copyright Law was the fair market value of a license covering the defendant’s use and that the proper value of this license should be calculated based on a hypothetical arms-length negotiation between the parties.  The lower court erred by restricting its focus to the Postal Services’ past payments and internal policies and was instructed on remand to consider all evidence relevant to a hypothetical negotiation, including Mr. Gaylord’s past royalties of between 8 percent and 10 percent.  The Federal Circuit also instructed that the lower court may conclude that different license fees are appropriate for the three categories of infringing goods identified in its prior opinion.

In addition, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the lower court’s denial of prejudgment interest, holding that sovereign immunity does not limit prejudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b).

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

Hershey Thinks Outside the Box (or the Candy Wrapper) in Seeking Trademark Protection for a Product Shape

The National Law Review recently published an article by Susan Neuberger Weller of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding Shape Trademarks:

On July 2, 2012, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB” or “Board”) granted Hershey’s request to register the design and shape of a chocolate bar as a trademark on the Principal Register. The design was described as “a configuration of a candy bar that consists of 12 equally-sized recessed rectangular panels arranged in a four panel by three panel format with each panel having its own raised border within a large rectangle.” The drawing for the mark is set forth below:

The issue in “product configuration” trademark cases is whether the design features sought to be protected are “functional”. If the overall design is functional, trademark protection is barred. In this case, the TTAB held that although the rectangular shape of the entire candy bar and the individual rectangular shapes scored within the bar were functional, since they made it more convenient to easily divide the bar into equal pieces, the overall design, when considered in its entirety, was not purely functional. Rather, the Board determined, based on the evidence presented that reflected a wide variety of shapes and decorative designs used for candy bars, that the particular combination of recessed rectangles with a raised border in the Hershey bar was not functional and, therefore, could be protected as a trademark.

The second issue the Board was required to consider was whether the product design had “acquired distinctiveness”. Product designs and configurations are not considered “inherently distinctive” as are many other types of trademarks. Thus, in order to be fully protected as a trademark and registered on the Principal Register, Hershey was required to demonstrate that relevant consumers considered the product design to be a source identifier. There is no specific rule or test for establishing that a mark has become distinctive. Evidence can consist of consumer recognition surveys, evidence as to the length of time a mark has been in use, sales revenue of goods bearing the mark, advertising expenditures to promote goods bearing the mark, and evidence that the product configuration was promoted in advertisements as a source indicator. Hershey’s submitted all of these types of evidence to meet its burden of proof. In addition, Hershey’s also provided evidence that a third party attempted to copy the design of the candy bar to use as the shape of a brownie baking pan. The Board found that all the evidence demonstrated that the design above had acquired distinctiveness and could be registered

Product configuration marks are not new. There are trademark registrations on the Principal Register for many product configurations, such as:

A Coca-cola bottle  Reg. No. 3232602

A Perrier bottle Reg. No. 1398744

Original Ideas’ barbecue grill Reg. No. 3987743

Emerson Electric’s thermostat Reg. No. 3195948

and many others.

The Hershey bar configuration has been in use since 1968, yet Hershey did not make any attempt to register the mark as a product configuration until recently.  Gaining a competitive edge in any industry, particularly in a slow economy, is essential. As Hershey’s demonstrated, it can be beneficial to think creatively and a bit more “out-of-the-box” when it comes to your intellectual property assets.  Particularly in a down economy, some may be tempted to copy a successful competitor rather than spend time and money on developing original ideas and creations. Accordingly, companies should carefully consider obtaining protection for the intellectual property assets they currently use and own, whether by trademark, copyright, and/or design patents, and for policing the market to ensure that their valuable properties are not being used by unauthorized third parties. Moreover, there may be licensing opportunities that could provide a revenue stream if appropriate protection has been obtained.

Today, it is a candy bar design. Tomorrow, it could be your existing product’s design. Think about it.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

The European Patent Office: A Helpful Guide for Inventors

Recently an article, The European Patent Office: A Helpful Guide for Inventors, written by Ivan T. Kirchev of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP was featured in The National Law Review:

Before entrepreneurs and startups try to protect their intellectual property rights in Europe, they must have a basic understanding of the European patent system and the ways that they can obtain European patent protection. Although European patent prosecution can be a complex and costly process, companies should certainly consider creating a European patent portfolio.

Geographically, Europe includes 45 countries. The European Patent Office (EPO), is a unified patent office located in Munich, Germany, created by the European Patent Convention (EPC) Treaty. The EPC includes 38 member states plus two extension states. The EPO offers a centralized procedure for filing a European patent application, enabling an inventor to make one patent filing in the EPO {e.g. either directly or by entering a national phase of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application} instead of 38 national applications. Upon grant, the patentee can register and file translations of the patent in any of the previously designated individual member countries. By filing through the EPO, the local patent offices in each EPC country will not need to independently review the application. Unless the inventor is a resident of one of the EPO member countries, the inventor must file in the EPO through a European patent agent.

The process before the EPO includes the following main steps: filing, search, publication, examination, grant, opposition (if filed by a third-party), and payment of fees (until grant). If an application contains a plurality of independent claims, which is often the case when the application was originally filed in the U.S., applicants are invited to limit the number of independent claims before the search in the EPO begins. The best approach is to have one independent claim in each category (e.g. method or apparatus/system). If the number of independent claims is not so limited, the search will be carried out on the basis of the first independent claim in each category.

The EPO performs a prior art search and issues a European Search Report and Opinion. The Search Report is published within 18 months of filing of the EP application. Since 2011, search results from other patent offices are used during the search by EPO. For example, the EPO can use search results, search opinions or examination reports (i.e. at least a relevant part of the reports concerning the search) submitted by the Applicant from various origins (e.g. Japan, Korea, U.S., PCT). No translation of the foreign search results is necessary and no copies of cited prior art documents are required. Applicants can submit these search results either upon filing the EP application, at the entry of the national‐phase (PCT), or as soon as they become available. The search results from other patent offices have no binding effect and do not replace EPO search or examination.

Applicants must request examination of the EP application within six months of the filing of the European Search Report. Further, the Applicant is obligated to correct any deficiencies noted in the search opinion when requesting examination. During examination, the EPO can issue actions with various rejections or objections to the application. The Applicant can amend the pending claims of the EP application in order to overcome any such rejections presented by the EPO. After the EPO issues a decision to grant a patent, an opposition by a third-party may be filed against the application. The opposition procedure before the EPO is an administrative, inter parties procedure that allows any European patent granted by the EPO under the EPC to be opposed by any person from the public (no commercial or other interest whatsoever need be shown). An opposition must be filed within nine months from the publication of the mention of grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin.

The European patent confers rights on its proprietor, in each designated country in which it is registered, from the date its grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin. Translation of a granted European patent must be filed in some EPC Contracting States to avoid a loss of that right. Therefore, filing and prosecuting an EP patent application can be expensive and requires payment of various fees. For example, annuity payments to the EPO are required each year the EP application is pending. If the inventor registers the patent in any of the EPC member countries, the inventor must pay annuities to maintain the patent in that country as well.

The European Union has plans to introduce a Unitary Patent in the near future. As discussed above, applications for a European Patent currently need to be filed with the EPO in Munich and then translated and refiled in each applicable EPO member state. Under a Unitary Patent system, applications will only be translated into the three official languages of the EPO – English, German, and French – and they will not need to be filed in each country where the patent is to be recognized. Twenty-five EU member states will participate in the Unitary Patent system, with Spain and Italy currently declining to join.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

U.S. Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision: Impacts on Life Sciences

The National Law Review recently published an article by Robyn S. Shapiro of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision:

The June 28, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) impacts the life sciences industry in a number of ways, including impacts on innovation and compliance initiatives by medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies.

Innovation

A number of provisions in the Act provide incentives and resources for product innovation.  First, it is expected that more than 30 million Americans will obtain health care coverage on account of the Act.  A bigger pool of Americans with health coverage to pay for treatment will yield growth in pharmaceutical sales and, perhaps, the ability to charge higher drug prices, which, in turn, could spur innovation.  In addition, the Act created the Therapeutic Discovery Project Program, through which $1 billion in new therapeutic discovery project grants and tax credits will be awarded.  In 2010, 2,923 companies specializing in biotechnology and medical research in 47 states and the District of Columbia received awards under the grant program.  Firms can opt to receive either a grant or a tax credit under the program, which allows both profitable companies and start-ups that are not yet profitable to benefit.  A third measure in the Act likely to have a positive impact on innovation is a provision that gives biotech companies a dozen years of exclusive rights to the data underpinning their products.

On the other hand, the ruling leaves intact a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, which is estimated to cost the industry $20 billion over the next 10 years, and which manufacturers fear will burden innovation.  On the other hand, some believe that, as in the case of pharmaceutical manufacturers, expansion of health care coverage will increase the demand for medical devices and offset the effect of the tax.

The Supreme Court ruling affects not only the speed but also the direction of life sciences product innovation.  PricewaterhouseCoopers[1] has identified five broad pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives (such as reimbursement for adoption of new technologies), resources for innovation (such as academic medical centers), a supportive regulatory system, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community of venture capitalists and other investors.  Various provisions in the Act promote the development of more cost-effective ways of delivering care, including a measure that calls for more real-world evidence of a new drug’s superiority over other treatments in order to qualify for reimbursement.  Such provisions may spur more definitive product innovation, as opposed to production of “me too” drugs and new devices that make only modest improvements to existing products.

Compliance

Certain provisions in the Act impact compliance initiatives in the life sciences industry.  The Act includes “Sunshine Provisions,” which require pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to track and report payments and other transfers of value greater than $10 to physicians and teaching hospitals.  While under prior laws improper industry-provider relationships primarily were uncovered by whistleblowers and government investigations, the Sunshine Provisions place the onus on life sciences manufacturers to disclose their relationships with providers, for review by others.  This enhanced transparency and data accessibility could result in sharper scrutiny by enforcement agencies of information about improper relationships and violations of fraud and abuse laws.  Moreover, other provisions in the Act enhance the government’s ability to pursue violations of existing fraud and abuse laws–e.g., revisions to the intent requirement of the Anti-Kickback Statute; and strengthening of fraud enforcement tools through changes to the False Claims Act, civil monetary penalty laws, sentencing guidelines and exclusion authority, and dedication of $250 million for fraud and abuse enforcement.  These changes will require life sciences companies to carefully structure and manage relationships with providers, and ensure that their compliance initiatives include efficient and effective operating procedures for tracking and reporting payments, educating and training sales and research personnel, and auditing and monitoring provider relationships.

[1] PricewaterhouseCoopers, Medical Technology Innovation Scoreboard: the Race for Global Leadership, January 2011.

©2012 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity