Franklin Pierce IP Summer Institute

For most of the month of June, I will be teaching the basic US Patent Law course at Franklin Pierce’s 21st annual Intellectual Property Summer Institute (IPSI). Other (more specialized) courses available include, inter alia, IP Management (Dellenbaugh); International Patent Law (Becker); Patent Data Mining (Cavicchi); Practice before the Federal Circuit (Whealan); Licensing (Weikers, Jorda); Trademark Law (LaFrance); and IP Valuation (Smith). I’m hoping to sit-in on a couple of these for my own edification.

For those of you who don’t know, Concord, New Hampshire is absolutely beautiful in the summer. Since Pierce is the only law school in the state and is located in the capital city, there is also a good chance that you’ll get to meet your favorite presidential candidate.

International: Pierce Law also offers an international summer perspective. Professor Bill Hennessey (probably the leading US scholar on Chinese patent law) is leading the IPSI program at Tsinghua University in Beijing. (June 25 – July 27). This is one of the very-top programs on Asian-IP issues, and Tsinghua is one of the highest rated universities in all of mainland China.  For a more European approach, Pierce Law also has an eLaw program in Cork, Ireland.

Links:

10 thoughts on “Franklin Pierce IP Summer Institute

  1. I’ve been asked to serve as an adjunct at an area law school and teach a 2-hour IP Survey course. I would welcome suggestions on a text and syllabus. The Merges, Menell & Lemley reference (Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (4th edition 2006; ISBN 0-7355-5866-3)) seems to be a favorite for a survey course based upon my initial on-line searching.

    Thanks in advance for any suggestions you may have.

    Jack Hicks / jhicks@wcsr.com

  2. I attended the Tsinghua program a few years ago. I highly reccomend it. It was the experience of a lifetime!

  3. Between the two, I’ve used Merges/Duffy more as a reference so I think I agree with you assessment of Merges/Duffy vs. Adelman/Rader book. Due to the short timespan of the class (is it still 6 weeks?), perhaps Adelman/Rader may be more manageable? By the way, have you looked at Chisum/Nard? It’s probably closer to Merges/Duffy.

  4. The only decent question (IMO) is:
    “Are you *not* an inventor?”
    And the only person who may qualify as not being an inventor is the one who answers, “I don’t know”, because everyone else who replies Yes or No has already invented an answer. (And I’m not sure what such a Yes or No venting from the inside might mean; No I’m not an inventor or Yes I’m not an inventor?)

    We all invent.
    Some of us invent stories.
    Some of us invent probing questions.
    Some of us invent other stuff. :-)

  5. Are there any courses on inventing (e.g., Inventing 101)? Such a course might also be named:

    How to Invent
    The Creative Art of Inventing
    Releasing Latent Inventive Creativity
    You Too Can Be An Inventor
    Inventing as a Career

    One would think that material in Dennis’s upcoming Symposium at Harvard Law School link to jolt.law.harvard.edu on March 16th,

    “What Are The Outer Limits Of Patentable Subject Matter?”

    could certainly be appropriate included subject matter, but would not be the focus of a course

    “How To Invent 101.”

  6. The major problem of the Merges/Duffy book is that it is hefty and heady. As a textbook, many consider the Rader (West) book to be better because it is simpler and more straightforward.

    For the Franklin Pierce class, I think that the Merges/Duffy book is better because the students in the class are almost all planning to practice patent law. The book explores almost every detail and has extensive notes and many “extra” cases. This is one that could easily serve as a reference a few years down-the-line.

  7. The Merges book is a good one. I used it when I was at Pierce Law and still referred to the updated versions when I was teaching at UC Hastings Law years later.

  8. 1. Conflicts regarding issued patents appear to have two tracks, one to the Federal District Court, and the other to USPTO. Is it correct that the Federal District Court addresses whether or not infringing has occurred and the role of the USPTO is to determine if an issued patent is void, invalid or unenforeable?
    2. Does a lawyer have to be registered with the USPTO to argue Patent issues before the Federal District Court or is that just before the USPTO?
    3. Can a not registered before the USPTO lawyer declare in public documents before the Federal District Court that my patent is void, unenforceable, and invalid?
    Thank you for your help.

Comments are closed.