Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm

I hope that you’ll join us here at the University of Missouri School of Law for our upcoming Symposium on October 4, 2013 focused on Resolving Intellectual Property Disputes (with particular focus on patents). The event is titled “Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm” and is sponsored by the MU School of Law’s Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution as well as the Journal of Dispute Resolution (JDR). Professor Jim Levin and I are organizing the event and have lined up a set of really interesting speakers (in my view). These include Greg Gorder who is a co-founder of the multi-billion-dollar patent market maker Intellectual Ventures. I expect that the event will be fairly small with about 100 patent law professionals coming in from around the country.

To the extent that you have interested colleagues who do not read Patently-O, please forward this invitation!

Links

Thanks, Dennis Crouch (dcrouch@patentlyo.com)

18 thoughts on “Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm

  1. You don’t have to mail – little thing called the internet helps a bunch.

    It sure does! For one thing, it makes it a lot easier to discard certified letters containing prior art that you don’t want to see.

  2. You don’t have to mail – little thing called the internet helps a bunch.

    Won’t help with your mindset though (might be a lost cause)

  3. Make willfulness de facto which … prompts people to pay more attention to patents.

    Great idea! Please please please push for this along with your other agenda items. I’m sure it will be a very popular idea.

    the stated reason for having patents in the first place: that people become aware of them.

    That’s why the government mails everybody in the country a copy of the Official Gazette every month. You should put that on your list of agenda items, too. I’m sure that public support will be tremendous.

  4. “And, boys and girls, please go back and look at what the Palins (aka the antis) had to say about Posner and what I had to say about Posner.”

    In such a difficult to predict case too!

  5. Now, if we can only get the SCOTUS to write:

    “We hereby explicitly overturn Benson and note that we had relied on scholarship by Professor Lemley that has proven to be unreliable. We would recommend that Stanford University contact an investigation into the ethical practices of Professor Lemley.”

  6. And, boys and girls, please go back and look at what the Palins (aka the antis) had to say about Posner and what I had to say about Posner.

    I am RIGHT again…

  7. Again, boys and girls I called this. This one was a gimme.

    Law360, Washington (September 11, 2013, 4:12 PM ET) — A Federal Circuit panel on Wednesday criticized Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner’s handling of Apple Inc. and Google Inc. unit Motorola Mobility Inc.’s smartphone patent infringement battle, saying they had significant concerns over his decision to throw out both sides’ claims prior to a full trial over injunctive relief.

  8. “This also promotes the stated reason for having patents in the first place: that people become aware of them.”

    Who stated that?

  9. Make willfulness de facto which both carries to the balance you seek and prompts people to pay more attention to patents.

    This also promotes the stated reason for having patents in the first place: that people become aware of them.

    Nothing like the perception of necessity as a driver for human action.

    Of course, you have to overcome that certain mindset of ‘patents are the worst thing EVER’ first.

  10. There needs to be a safe harbor for patent license discussions. We could start by making DJ jurisdiction harder. That would take pressure off a patent owner to sue first and offer a license later. The old rules of hard to DJ and easy to get willfulness got flipped, and now we have too much litigation. If we made both DJ and willfulness hard to get, the balance would be much better.

Comments are closed.