The Issues discussed at the 2018 Leahy Institute of Advanced Patent Studies are set forth below. Following each of the issues are papers accepted by The Naples Roundtable and posted to stimulate discussion and debate during the conference. The papers posted here represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Naples Roundtable, its officers and directors, its Advisory Board members, or any other participant in Naples Roundtable activities. It is the responsibility of the authors to note on the first page whether any paper was prepared on behalf of a client or third person or organization.
Phoenix Issue I. Has the AIA strengthened the patent system and decreased the cost of removing invalid patents? Has AIA gone far enough? What can and should be done to improve the process?
“The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses” Supplemental Statement of Judge Paul R. Michel (Ret.) Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives
The Role of IP In Economic Growth –Looking Back, Looking Forward by David J. Kappos and Jessica M. Goodman
Paper: Has the AIA Strengthened the Patent System? by Kenneth R. Adamo
PowerPoint: Has the AIA Strengthened the Patent System? by Kenneth R. Adamo
Impact of the America Invents Act on US and International Litigation Strategy by Kenneth R. Adamo
PGR Basics; Pros/Cons by Kenneth R. Adamo
PGR vs. IPR Chart by Kenneth R. Adamo
Phoenix Issue II. Is the existence of the IPR and PGR procedures beneficial to the strength of the patent system and if they are held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional in Oil States vs. Greene’s Energy Group then what is the impact and what if anything should be done to replace these procedures?
Phoenix Issue III. Is the current level of implementation of Section 101 supportive of having a strong patent system or has it gone too far? If it should be changed then what judicial and legislative actions regarding patent eligibility under Section 101 would best serve the patent system?
Director Andrei Iancu’s Act One by Robert L. Stoll
Phoenix Issue IV. How best should venue issues be determined following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft?
The Effect of TC Hearland on Patent Review by Clyde Siebman and Michael C. Smith
The Impact of TC Heartland on Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Litigation by George F. Pappas and Jihong Lou
Phoenix Issue V. What are the economic and legal consequences (both in the U.S. and internationally) of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark, and what, if any, judicial or legislative action is needed to best address those consequences?
Post Grant Patent Challenge Procedures Under Fire at The Supreme Court by Harold C. Wegner
Impression Products Inc. V. Lexmark International, Inc. by Robert M. Isackson
Phoenix Issue VI. What actions, if any, are needed to protect the U.S. patent system and U.S. patent holders in light of Brexit and ongoing developments relating to a European Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court?
Patent owners should not fear the Unified Patent Court by John Pegram
UK and UPC: a test of compatibility by John Pegram
Unified Patent Court Procedure by John Pegram
Patent Strategy in Europe in view of the Unitary Patent System and BREXIT by Eva Liesegang and Dr. Andreas Lucke
A UK Perspective By Paul Cole
Phoenix Issue VII. To what extent is the patent system well-served by the extra-territorial enforcement of unfair competition and intellectual property laws?
Boundaries, Extraterritoriality, And Patent Infringement Damages by Timothy R. Holbrook
Extra-Jurisdictional Remedies Involving Patent Licensing by Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Joshua D. Wright, Bruce H. Kobayashi, and Douglas H. Ginsburg
Testimony On International Antitrust Enforcement by Koren W. Wong-Ervin
The Department of Justice’s Long-Awaited and Much Needed Course-Correction on FRAND-Assured Standard-Essential Patents Competition Policy International, forthcoming November 2017 by Douglas H. Ginsburg and Koren W. Wong-Ervin
These articles were first published on the IAM daily blog by Globe Business Media Group. To visit IAM please go to www.IAM-media.com.
IP insider: The patent follies of antitrust zealots by David J. Kappos and and David J. Teece
IAM Response to Delrahim Speech by Joff Wild
Phoenix Issue VIII. What more needs to be done following the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics to properly determine whether a case is sufficiently egregious to warrant an award of enhanced damages? Has Halo resurrected the need to obtain an opinion of counsel, and if so, should that need be restricted to a subset of cases?
The Willful Infringement Standard: Notes on its Development, Impact, and Future Trends by Leora Ben-Ami and Aaron Nathan
Phoenix Issue IX. Has the Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health adequately addressed the award of attorney fees in exceptional cases?
Federal Circuit Law on Attorneys’ Fees After Octane Fitness by Michelle Armond
Enhancing Patent Damages by Dmitry Karshtedt
Phoenix Issue X. Would an exchange of an early set of Patent Damage Contentions, such as now provided for in the NDCA, aid in settling litigation and making proportionality determinations?