I’m speaking shortly on ethics (inequitable conduct, mostly), but have been listening intently to the various speakers. Some big picture issues:
They all think that the 101 jurisprudence is unworkable and puts at risk entire industries. First, (by definition) pretty much everything involves natural phenomenon or a natural product. Second, it’s idiotic: if you discover (which, despite the Constitution and the definitions in the statute is not an “invention” according to the Supreme Court) a natural product, if it’s easy to make use of you can’t get a patent; if it’s really hard to use, then you can. (That is, if you can use (viewed post hoc, of course) conventional methods on the newly discovered natural product, you can’t get a patent, but if it takes a lot of new stuff beyond that, you can.)
They’re worried about the Akamai mess and divided infringement and its impact on method claims in this field.
People should obtain opinions of counsel due to the “you believe it’s invalid” aspect of inducement.
More on that point: suppose I know I induce infringement of a patent. But, I reasonably believe it’s invalid. But it turns out the CAFC, PTO, etc. say it’s valid. Does it matter for pre- CAFC conduct versus post-CAFC? What if I have art that the CAFC/PTO didn’t consider? Commil is wrong, imho.
This was live-blogged so excuse my grammar/typos.