Design Patents in the Modern World Conference

Stanford Law School is hosting what looks to be an excellent event on April 5, 2013 that focuses on design patents. The event is free, but you should register here.

Long neglected in practice and academic scholarship, design patents have exploded in importance as a result both of recent changes in the law and high-profile cases like Apple v. Samsung. Drawing on the experience of lawyers, in-house counsel and academics, our conference will explore both practical and policy ramifications of these developments.

Speakers include: Sarah Burstein (University of Oklahoma); Christopher Carani (McAndrews); Dennis Crouch (University of Missouri); Alan Morgan Datri (WIPO); Brian Hanlon (USPTO); Laura Heymann (William & Mary Law School); James Juo (Fulwider Patton); Robert Katz (Banner & Witcoff); Mark Lemley (Stanford); Jaime Lemons (Nike); Katie Maksym (Nike); Michael Meehan (Google); Mark McKenna (Notre Dame Law School); Tom Moga (Shook Hardy & Bacon); John Pratt (Kilpatrick Townsend); Michael Risch (Villanova Law School); Perry Saidman (Saidman Design Law); and Matt Schruers (CCIA).

More Info: http://www.law.stanford.edu/event/2013/04/05/design-patents-in-the-modern-world-conference

The following day (April 6, 2013), Stanford is also hosting an academic conference on design patents with additional speakers, including Paul Goldstein, Rebecca Tushnet, Pam Samuelson, David Abrams, Jason Du Mont, Andew Torrance, Sarah Wasserman Rajec, Graeme Dinwoodie, Sunder Madhavi, Peter Lee, Ryan Vocca, Gerard Magloicca, Rob Merges, and Colleen Chien. The second day is purely academic and will have some pie-in-the-sky, but is also free and open to practitioners.

See you there!

22 thoughts on “Design Patents in the Modern World Conference

  1. Maybe whomever owns the design patent on the “Star Trek Next Generation” font can have the materials seized…

  2. ROTFLMAO

    I can’t believe I won’t be able to attend, I will be in Europe at the time, doing actual lawyering.

    Regarding all the usual suspect “patent gurus” jumping on the bandwagon, or who want the line on their CV, the bandwagonism is pathetic.

    I’m not sure WHY I would want to be there, I don’t even know the format, or the goal. “Exploring the practical and policy ramifications of recent developments” is a bit vague for my liking. Will there be any guidelines developed, or a set of recommendations?

    Sounds like another CV-building exercise.

    What’s that? Someone won a $1B jury award? NOW design is IMPORTANT! Talk about being unprepared.

  3. See AAA JJ – I would pay top dollar to see any Malcolm expertise.

    (safely assured my wallet will not get any lighter)

  4. Was that your design patent that featured nothing but a sheet of microfine crosshatching?

    Right, except the dashed lines identical to those in the logo will be replaced with solid lines. That’s not new matter, according to some “design patent experts”. That’s just “the way it’s always been done.”

  5. Maybe a good time to have a protest against Stanford for sponsoring Lemley.

    Maybe anon can help you build a giant paper mache puppet.

  6. Given that design patents are not examined and the apparent impossibility of filing a frivolous design patent lawsuit, the idea of anyone being hailed as an “expert” in US design patent law is pretty funny. Information about such “experts” is properly filed next to the “experts” at buying fresh bread from the grocery store and the “experts” at determining what’s on channel 2 tonite.

    I mean, it’s 2013 and the Federal Circuit is deciding for the first time whether converting dashed lines to solid lines in a design patent application constitutes new matter? Even more hilarious is that it would not be terribly surprising for the CAFC to get it wrong (although it would be terrible).

  7. Would it be awkward if I seized all the meeting materials on the opening day because they infringe my design patent?

Comments are closed.