50th Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law

Overview

The Center for American and International Law presented its first conference on IP Law in 1963. In the early years, D. Carl Richards chaired the Institute on Patent Law (as the conference was called then). Later on, V. Bryan Medlock chaired or co-chaired the conferences for many years. Members of today’s Institute for Law and Technology are grateful to these leaders and to the many others who co-chaired conferences, organized sessions, or made presentations.

This special golden anniversary program celebrated 50 years of IP Law CLE in Dallas as well as the decision to locate a regional office of the USPTO in the DFW metro area. The celebration included a special 50th anniversary dinner for conference delegates on Monday, November 12.

This conference is free to ILT Advisory Board Members.

Apply for ILT Membership Online

Highlights:

• Strategies for the impending switch to a "first-to-file" patent regime
• Standards and antitrust law in Europe
• What the new regional patent office will mean for patent attorneys in Texas
• Copyright in the movie industry
• Insider perspectives on enterprise licensing schemes
• Annual updates on patent, copyright, and trademark law
• 50th Anniversary Dinner - "The Implications of a Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for Texas Patent Attorneys"

Conference Co-Chairs

Lawrence J. Bassuk
Texas Instruments Inc.
Dallas, Texas

David O. Taylor
SMU Dedman School of Law
Dallas, Texas

Download the Brochure (pdf)

For more details, download the online brochure.

Tuition

Registration includes the Conference, course materials, continental breakfast, the networking and hosted luncheon and the networking reception for conference registrants and faculty.

• $545 / $595 - Regular registration fee
• $0 - ILT Advisory Board Member
• $435 / $475 - ILT Supporting or Sustaining Member Employee
• $150 - Materials Only

Schedule and Faculty

Monday, November 12, 2012

7:45 am

Networking Breakfast - hosted by Dallas / FortWorth Women in IP

Valencia Martin-Wallace, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Alexandria, Virginia) 

Patent Litigation Module

Theodore Stevenson III, Module Chair, McKool Smith, PC (Dallas, Texas)

9:00 am

Appellate Advocacy at the Federal Circuit

Fourteen thousand words and fi fteen minutes don’t go as far as they used to. What can appellate advocates do to craft the most effective appeal possible, given the limitations placed by the Court? What is the role of oral argument in the decision-making process, and how can it best be used? What will be the hot issues for the Federal Circuit over the next few years?

Moderator:

Theodore Stevenson III, McKool Smith, PC (Dallas, Texas)

Panelists:

• The Honorable Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington, D.C.)
• Edward Reines, Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Redwood Shores, California)
• John M. Whealan, Associate Dean for Intellectual Property Law Studies, The George Washington University Law School (Washington, D.C.)

10:00 am

The Marshall Docket

It has been approximately one year since Judge Gilstrap took over the Marshall docket, the busiest patent docket in the country. Judge Gilstrap will discuss his experiences so far, how he is handling his dockets, practices and procedures he has put in place, and what the future holds.

Moderator:

Samuel Baxter, Principal, McKool Smith, PC (Marshall, Texas)

Panelist:

The Honorable Rodney Gilstrap, District Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall, Texas)

10:30 am

Break

10:45 am

Patent Litigation in China

China’s population has grown to over 1.3 billion. China now represents the second largest market for goods and services in the world. And more patent applications are being filed in China than in any other country in the world. In light of these trends, experts agree that China is becoming an important forum for patent infringement litigation. So, what is the future of patent litigation in China? What do foreign companies thinking about asserting patent rights in China need to know? How should foreign companies defend themselves against infringement claims in China? A leading patent infringement litigator in China will share substantive and practical insights into patent litigation practice in China.

• Xu Jing, King and Wood Mallesons (Beijing, China)
• Zunxuan (Digger) Chen, Locke Lord LLP (Dallas, Texas)
• Chief Judge Yu Yu, Shandong High People’s Court (Shandong Province, China) 

11:30 am

Joinder, Consolidated Trials, Venue Transfer, and Multi-District Litigation

The creation of 35 U.S.C. § 299 by the America Invents Act has changed the way multidefendant patent cases are fi led and tried. How are courts handling multi-defendant patent cases under the new law, what issues can be commonly tried, how has the new law affected 1404(a) transfer motions, and what is the future role of multi-district litigation procedures?

Chad Everingham, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (Longview, Texas) (Former U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division)

Noon

Pick Up Boxed Lunches

12:15 pm

The Physics of Fights

One of the country’s foremost mediators of high profi le and intractable cases will challenge lawyers to serve their clients and the community better by focusing our considerable talents on recognizing and accommodating the forces inherent in an adversarial system that impede the negotiation of resolutions.

Antonio Piazza, Mediated Negotiations (San Francisco, California) 

1:15 pm

Break

Trademark and Copyright Module

Rob King, Module Chair, Silicon Laboratories (Austin, Texas)

1:30 pm

The Year in Copyright Law

A review of 2011-12 cases and controversies involving copyright law, including issues related to fair use, digital media, remedies, and ethical considerations facing copyright practitioners.

Kevin J. Meek, Baker Botts LLP (Austin, Texas)

2:30 pm

Copyright in the Movie Industry

All movies start with an original script or script from a book. Who owns those rights? Who can sell or license them? Are movie concepts protectable? How do production companies treat unsolicited scripts and why? What is in the public domain? What is fair use? What about using music in fi lm? Or still photos and video clips in documentary films? How do you protect the film itself, prequels, sequels, spin-offs and merchandise? What is the interplay among copyright,First Amendment rights, the right to privacy, and rights of publicity?

Lawrence A. Waks, Jackson Walker LLP (Austin, Texas)

3:15 pm

Break

3:30 pm

How to Enforce a Trademark Without Going Viral

Online backlash is the infl uenza of today’s business world – easy to catch, virulent, and hard to stop. Your client is eager to enforce its marks, but you don’t want them lambasted on every blog and Twitter feed. How do you zealously protect your client’s marks without creating a PR nightmare? We will discuss particularly egregious examples of enforcements gone viral and how to avoid spreading the online backlash flu.

Justin S. Cohen, Thompson & Knight LLP (Dallas, Texas)

4:00 pm

Concurrent Sessions

A: The Year in Trademark Law

5:00 pm

Reception

6:00 pm

50th Anniversary Dinner “The Implications of a Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Dallas for Texas Patent Attorneys”

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Patent Prosecution Module

Ira Matsil, Module Chair, Slater & Matsil, LLP (Dallas, Texas)

7:45 am

Concurrent Breakfast Sessions

A: Guided Ethics Roundtables

Join one of our guided roundtable discussions addressing modern-day ethical issues confronting intellectual property attorneys.

Moderator:

Paul V. Storm, Storm LLP (Dallas, TX)

Facilitators:

• Stewart Mesher, Conley Rose, P.C. (Austin, Texas)
• William McSpadden, Baker & McKenzie LLP (Dallas, Texas)
• Duncan Williams, Clear Channel Communications (San Antonio, Texas)

B: America Invents Act Strategies

This presentation will focus on identifying best strategies for your clients when contemplating the new law in the America Invents Act, such as deciding whether to fi le applications governed by the old law or the new law, identifying when an inventor should publish and when an inventor should fi le an application, and how the recommended timing of filing an application may differ from past practices.

Bradley Williams, Baker Botts LLP (Dallas, Texas) 

8:45 am

Break

9:00 am

The Year in Patent Law

A review of 2010-2011 patent law decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

Gale R. “Pete” Peterson, Cox Smith & Matthews Incorporated (San Antonio, Texas)

10:00 am

Break

10:15 am

Predictability as a Basis for Obviousness

The concept of “predictability” plays a larger role in nonobviousness determinations after KSR v. Teleflex. This presentation will detail this larger role in both court and the USPTO decisions and explore whether a substantive change in the nonobviousness standard has accompanied this increased use of the concept of predictability.

Christopher A. Cotropia, University of Richmond School of Law (Richmond, Virginia)

11:00 am

Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

This panel will provide fi rst impressions of inter partes review, which becomes available on September 16, 2012. Topics include procedural considerations, such as surprises, pitfalls, and how to use procedure to make it easier for the Board to fi nd in favor of your client, as well as strategic considerations, such as factors to consider when deciding whether to use inter partes review and the impact of inter partes review on parallel litigation.

Moderator:

David M. O'Dell, Haynes and Boone LLP (Richardson, Texas)

Panelists:

• The Honorable Michael Tierney, Lead Judge, Trial Division, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Offi ce (Alexandria, Virginia)
• Thomas King, Haynes and Boone LLP (Irvine, California)
• Kevin Kudlac, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Houston, Texas)

Noon

Pick Up Boxed Lunches

12:15 pm

Inequitable Conduct: Changed Under AIA? Therasense? What Should I Be Doing?

In this presentation we’ll fi rst look at the effect of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense on the duty of candor and its enforcement. Those who predicted Therasense would end claims of inequitable conduct may be dismayed, but so may those who predicted Therasense would be ignored. Also, will Therasense be the last word on point, or will the Supreme Court get involved? We’ll next look at the meaning of the duty of candor in view of the provisions in the America Invents Act striking “intent to deceive” from the governing statutes. Last, we’ll look at what really happens to the duty of candor in and after a supplemental examination. Amidst all of this commotion, what should your duty of candor look like?

Thomas L. Irving, Finegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Washington, D.C.)

1:15 pm

Break

Technology, Licensing, & IP Rights Module

Marc Hubbard, Module Chair, Hubbard Law PLLC (Richardson, Texas)

1:30 pm

The Tail Wagging the Dog: Litigation’s Unnatural Effects on Patent Prosecution

Litigators are increasingly dictating the “dos and don’ts” of patent prosecution. However, those dictates often run counter to a client’s interests in building portfolios by obtaining patents quickly at a reasonable cost. Should the litigation tail wag the prosecution dog? And what can you do to balance those interests and restore natural order?

Colin Cahoon, Carstens & Cahoon, LLP (Dallas, Texas)

2:00 pm

Patents, Standards, & Antitrust Law in Europe

Standards organizations require commitments from member companies to license patents that are essential to implement a standard developed by that organization. Such license commitments often require fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Is a request for injunctive relief or exclusion order compatible
with a FRAND commitment? What is the relationship of patents, standards, and antitrust law in Europe?

Mark W. Nelson, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Washington, D.C.) 

2:45 pm

Patent Monetization: A New Focus of Stakeholders

Public company shareholders, venture capitalists, private equity investors, and even university trustees are loudly demanding that the entities they own or oversee start deriving value from the patent portfolios they have been building. This presentation will discuss the large variety of options available to them to meet their fi duciary duties.

John C. Lindgren, MOSAID Technologies Inc. (Dallas, Texas)

3:15 pm

Break

3:30 pm

When All That Twitters is Not Told: Ethical Considerations in Lawyers' Use of Social Media

Social media are irrevocably altering the legal landscape, impacting traditional notions of jurisdiction, procedure, causes of action, discovery, and evidence. Using the American experience by way of illustration, this presentation will examine the ethical quandaries and considerations presented by lawyers’ use of social networking. From an attorney’s duty to provide reasonably competent representation to communicating with witnesses, maintaining client confidences, discovery and presentation of evidence, and jury selection and monitoring, the intersection of existing rules of professional conduct and emerging technologies is fertile ground for discussion. This presentation will analyze ethics opinions and decisions from bar associations and courts across the United States, as well as weigh in on the debate whether social media technologies mandate implementing new ethical rules.

John G. Browning, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (Dallas, Texas)

4:00 pm

Enterprise Approaches to Vetting and Licensing Open Source Software

Open source software (OSS) has crept into every aspect of the software, computing, and services business. It has created benefits and opportunities while also posing challenges, including the need to track and control the use of OSS. This presentation will highlight problems a company faces with identification, management, and control of OSS, with its many different license agreements and versions. The presenters will compare and contrast the approach taken by two large companies with respect to OSS and discuss online systems that have been implemented to track and control OSS. They will identify and discuss minimum control processes all software and computer companies using OSS should consider.

Panelists:

• Allen Lineberry, Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. (Plano, Texas)
• Steven L. Page, HP Enterprise Services (Plano, Texas)

5:00 pm

Adjourn

CLE Credits

This course has been approved by the State Bar of Texas for 17.5 hours of credit, including 2.75 hours of ethics; Course ID Number: 901252983. Sign-in sheets and/or certifi cates of attendance will be available for ALL states.

Hotel Information

The cost of housing is not included in tuition. However, rooms (in limited number) have been reserved at Plano Marriott at Legacy Town Center, 7121 Bishop Road, Plano, Texas 75024. Registrants should advise them they will be attending the Entrepreneurial Engagement Workshop to receive the reduced room rate of of $139 + tax. The last day to obtain this special rate is October 29, 2012.

Cancellation Policy

Other Information

Privacy Policy

We do not sell or rent information to any outside parties. By providing your information, you will receive postal and electronic communications from the Institute for Law and Technology (ILT) of The Center for American and International Law (CAIL) in accordance with CAIL's Privacy Policy. If we co-sponsor a program with another organization, information may be shared between the parties. All such co-sponsors will be identified on the event details and registration page. At any point, you can opt-out or unsubscribe by selecting either link at the bottom of each email or call us at 972.244.3400.