Patent Reform: Next Stop USPTO

Ron Katznelson has become a leading patent data guru. In a recent talk at UC Davis Law School, he presented is ideas that the next focus of patent reform should be on USPTO Operations. His focus remains on (1) pendency and (2) quality without limiting patentee rights. Katznelson calls for an optional deferred examination for those applicants willing to go slow. In his schema, a third party worried about a pending application could request examination of a deferred application. With some financial incentives (such as a substantial examination fee), many voluntary deferred applications may become voluntary abandoned claims due based on obsolescence or low market potential (creating a “substantial workload reduction”).

As shown below –the pendency problem is growing.

Katznelson also discussed the enjoined PTO continuation & claim rules. The beautiful graph below helps illustrate the significant number (about 30%) of patent applications having more than 5 independent or 25 dependent claims.

On the continuation side, Katznelson had to resort to a logarithmic axis to show the continuity chain distribution at the PTO.

Notes:

48 thoughts on “Patent Reform: Next Stop USPTO

  1. 48

    “Sometimes they are long out of business, even.”

    That is tragic. Seriously.

    “I had suggested that the office contact the applicants 3-6 months prior to they were up for examination & see if they wanted to continue pursuit of the application. Maybe even refund part of the filing fees if they no longer are interested in pursuing it, if that was possible within the rules/laws. I was told that it would be ‘too expensive’ to do that.”

    Not a bad idea, as it might be worth it if only a small percentage opted out. However, my guess is that most applicants will want to “see what happens” with the first office action, unless there’s a substantial refund available. Even then, because humans are more than a bit irrational, implementing a “demand” for examination is likely to be more effective, even if the dollars work out exactly the same. The advantage of your approach, of course, is that yours works retroactively.

  2. 47

    dinnerbell,

    I agree with you.

    We waste too much time on cases that the applicant is no longer interested in pursuing. Sometimes they are long out of business, even. But we still need to examine them the 1st time. Having to actually request an examination will remove those cases from consideration & substantially reduce the backlog at no real cost (monetary or coverage) to the applicant.

    Actually, when they started trying to come up with ideas to reduce the backlog (before the infamous rules packages) I had suggested that the office contact the applicants 3-6 months prior to they were up for examination & see if they wanted to continue pursuit of the application. Maybe even refund part of the filing fees if they no longer are interested in pursuing it, if that was possible within the rules/laws. I was told that it would be “too expensive” to do that (personally, I don’t buy that excuse). So we got stuck with that rule package.

    Lots of ideas out there, but too many in charge already know what they want & only want ideas that are the same as theirs.

    MVS

  3. 46

    deferred prosecution makes perfect sense. it will save applicants money by not pursuing patents for technologies that don’t pan out. wait until they are a commercial success, then request exam.

  4. 44

    JD, I KNOW the correct version of the name. I chose the particular version I did for other, personal, reasons.

    And, I see how much effect YOUR opinions have had as well.

    Now, drop it as I don’t like having to pick on the elderly.

    MVS

  5. 43

    “I didn’t know you were approaching retirement.”

    That’s the best you can do?

    No wonder you post under that silly screen name. Which you couldn’t even get right from the book borrowed it from.

    Keep speaking your mind in those meetings. It’s clearly having a positive effect.

  6. 42

    “Typical to go to the minor issues instead of the substantive things in your response.”

    When you post something substantive, I’ll go there. Until then, keep up the good work over there.

    LOL

  7. 41

    Or os this the “real” johndarling from whence you got your name?

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    NO, seriously, I shouldn’t be so mean to old JD. After the quick google search I found his picture on his firms web site. I now understand WHY he is always acting so mean & contancerous. I always thought we were dealing with a relative youngster (40 or so) based on when he graduated & was in the office. I didn’t know you were approaching retirement. That would explain why you are so set in your ways.

    have a nice day ;)

    MVS

  8. 39

    “…the posts you reference was not me.”

    LOL

    Right.

    “Oh, I notice you corrected the name from ‘Griffin’ to ‘Griffith’. So, from that it appears you are confirming the story. Right?”

    Uh, no. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Neither do you apparently.

  9. 38

    SF & PDS,

    You are correct in that way too many examiners & spes will do as you say. Personally, I think that it is unconscionable & for those examiners/spes you should do as you say & go right to appeal & not waste time with other things.

    However, I would ask that you take into consideration what spe/examiner you are dealing with. While there are too many “bad” ones (really, 1 bad 1 is too many), there are still a lot of good ones that want to do the job right.

    Base your actions on the reputations of the ones you are dealing with. If they just reject, reject, reject & renege on agreements, then I agree you should nail them & just go to appeal. However, if they normally work with you & do a good job try to work with them 1st before you treat them like the “bad” ones. Otherwise, you just discourage the good ones & you basically “teach” them that you are not going to work with them so why should they work with you to make everyone’s life easier.

    Both sides quickly earn their reputations as to how they prosecute/examine & those reputations are hard to change. Most examiners quickly learn who is likely to appeal & who will almost always file the RCE & they keep that in mind when doing their cases (I am not defending it; just stating the human nature of the business). I am sure that you all know who (examiner, spe, art unit) will usually give you a good examination & who is likely to give you garbage. And you probably take that into account in what you advise your clients.

    Just some things to consider.

    MVS

  10. 37

    Hey, JD, the posts you reference was not me. Just yet one more person that has gotten fed up with you & your B$ attitudes, I guess. Getting to be a long list.

    However, since you addressed me, I will respond to some of what you said.

    YES, I have on numerous occasions raised complaints at meetings, as well as in person to Doll, Dudas, Love, various directors & others. The issues raised include the exact issue of the “reject” mentality and that spes & primaries should not be afraid to allow patents if there is no legitimate grounds to reject them. I even went as far as to say that the spes & primaries were indicating that they were getting that idea from higher-up. He denied it & said that was not the policy he has given the directors (never been in the directors meetings, so can not confirm or deny that).

    So, yes. I’ve said those things to my BOSSes. When things have to be said, they need to be said.

    And, why do YOU think that most people here do not use their real names? You ever hear about possible retaliation? You can more easily use your real name as you are NOT complaining about YOUR employer. Just someone else’s. Tell you what, when I make complaints about any of YOUR employers I’ll use my real name. Deal? That way we’ll be working on the same plane. Otherwise you are just throwing out a red herring.

    Oh, I notice you corrected the name from “Griffin” to Griffith”. So, from that it appears you are confirming the story. Right?

    MVS

  11. 36

    “Same here. Why interview a case, and agree to an amendment only to have the examiner come up with more bad art?”

    no kidding. It used to be that, to avoid making the examiner mad, we’d try to work with them. It now appears that working with them is becoming less and less productive, bordering on futility. I have inherited several cases that have been amended four or more times. Many of those could have been appealed twice for the same cost.

    Have you found much success (like your recent example) in getting examiners to allow cases after the notice of appeal, but before reversal? Had you or the examiner filed a brief?

  12. 35

    “we’ve made minor amendments agreed to in an interview to advance the case. Rather than resulting in allowance, this has resulted in repeated rejections, incremental amendments, and a collosal waste of time”

    Same here. Why interview a case, and agree to an amendment only to have the examiner come up with more bad art?

    Just got another call today from another examiner offering up an amendment after an appeal that I filed. Unlike most amendments that are agreed upon during an interview, this amendment will result in an allowance.

  13. 34

    pds: I’ve seen many cases recently in which, rather than calling the examiner on some disregarded claim features, we’ve made minor amendments agreed to in an interview to advance the case. Rather than resulting in allowance, this has resulted in repeated rejections, incremental amendments, and a collosal waste of time. I’ve shifted my approach to yours, that is, just appeal. If the USPTO’s strategy is reject, reject, reject, ours should be appeal, appeal, appeal.

  14. 33

    “Cancelling is another AF response. Amending them is an RCE. Either way, the move is yours to make, not the office’s.”

    On the other hand, for me to file an RCE or an AF response is a once in a blue moon event. To do so means that the examiner found good art — a rare happening for me.

  15. 32

    “There is no need to waste the examiner’s time if you don’t have the balls to appeal or the smarts to figure out what is worth appealing and what is not.”

    Don’t worry about me and appealing. I’ve written more appeal briefs than you have written substantive office actions (i.e., restrictions and advisory actions don’t count).

  16. 31

    MVS,

    I’m sure you’ve “challenged” PTO (mis)management many times in these meetings you claim to have attended. And the effect was what?

    In fact, I attended the AIPLA mid-winter meetings in New Orleans in January, 2007 and, as a member of the Relations with the PTO committee, I attended the committee meeting that Mr. Doll attended. He did his usual presentation full of a blizzard of statistics on pendency, quality, blah, blah, blah, and made his standard argument for the (then still unveiled final) claim examination and continuation rules.

    I told him, in front of the committee, that, IMO, the main causes of the backlog were the examining corps’ practice of adopting the broadest unreasonable claim interpretation, their adherence to the “quality = reject, reject, reject” mandate, and the implementation of the second pair of eyes review.

    He denied all of it.

    Shocking.

    So yes, I’ve challenged your beloved PTO (mis)managers.

    “Willing to bet the answer is ZERO.”

    So how much do I win?

    “Easy for U to complain on some blog but a whole lot harder for U to challenge someone to their face, isn’t it.”

    I post my opinions just about every day. Under my real name. And you do what?

    “U R right that the way the rule is written is bogus & becomes a waste to the examiner & applicant (tho a boon to you guys).”

    The pre-appeal program is not in the rules. One would think that after a career in the PTO you would know the difference between OG notices and 37 CFR.

    At another bar association meeting I attended, I asked Mr. Love if the pre-appeal program would ever be written into 37 CFR. He said no.

    If you think having applicants continually frustrated by lousy examination and re-opening of prosecution is a boon to the patent bar, you’re even more ignorant than I thought. You do continue to surprise though.

    “wasn’t that the Darling family member they didn’t want to mention on the old Andy Griffin shows?”

    Do you mean Andy Griffith?

    6k,

    “Oh, and we’re going to see Tafas so remember to prepare something to say about abolishing 56.”

    I favor abolishing Rule 56. No other country or patent office in the world has a similar requirement.

    What else is there to say?

  17. 30

    “It is a waste of both the examiner’s time and applicant’s money to have an appeal brief filed when the examiner already knows that the appeal will be withdrawn.”

    Nobody makes you file an appeal brief there partnero, what you are “supposed” to do, if you need further guidance is call the examiner, see if your most solid arguments are persuasive, and see if your weakest ones fell through. If your weakest ones fell through then you are then supposed to cancel the claims, or amend them. And guess what that involves? Cancelling is another AF response. Amending them is an RCE. Either way, the move is yours to make, not the office’s. There is no need to waste the examiner’s time if you don’t have the balls to appeal or the smarts to figure out what is worth appealing and what is not.

  18. 29

    “No, they don’t tell the audience that. And I know because I’ve been to meetings where they spew out this phony garbage.”

    Did you stand up and call them on it? In a loud voice?

    It was rather funny at a TC meeting we had a few years back one of the examiners asked one of those “o no you didn’t” questions to Doll. Funny indeed, you should definitely bring those sorts of things up at those meetings man. Oh, and we’re going to see Tafas so remember to prepare something to say about abolishing 56.

    IMO simply argue that it is a substantive rule. Apparently those types of rules go down really easy.

  19. 28

    john-boy darling (wasn’t that the Darling family member they didn’t want to mention on the old Andy Griffin shows?),

    you say “No, they don’t tell the audience that. And I know because I’ve been to meetings where they spew out this phony garbage.”

    At how many of these meetings did you have the ba11s$ to stand up and actually challenge them & their stats? Willing to bet the answer is ZERO. Easy for U to complain on some blog but a whole lot harder for U to challenge someone to their face, isn’t it.

  20. 27

    pds,

    U R right that the way the rule is written is bogus & becomes a waste to the examiner & applicant (tho a boon to you guys). But complain to the rules makers & not the examiners. They are just following what the rules say. And they say if at least ONE ground would be maintained to indicate that the case would proceed to the board. Not our fault for the way they are written.
    & the rules are the same as they were originally, so complaints about changing how they are present are bull-S*** arguments. Hasn’t changed.

    & what some examiner says in the 1st half is completely correct. The second half is too often the case & that is a BIG problem with many examiners/spes today. The stats shouldn’t matter in the small pic (& any given case won;t make a difference)

  21. 26

    Earlier post by ‘Some Examiner’:
    ” In fact, for every decision we make, we ask the following questions: “Which stats will this affect? How important are those stats? How will it affect those stats?” ”

    This was exactly my point in my slide presentation! – This post by ‘Some Examiner’ is a damming admission that examiners are directed to make PATENTABILITY decisions by considering “Which stats will this affect? How important are those stats? How will it affect those stats?” – rather than the statutory directives of sections 101-103.

    How about following the MPEP as a guide for patentability decisions? I would love to hear from ‘Some Examiner’ what instrument, written policy or guidance memo he received from any supervisor instructing him to consider “his decision’s effect on statistics”. Likewise, I would love to hear what performance review criteria are articulated to punish examiners who fail to consider the “statistical effect” of their patentability decisions.

    Ron Katznelson

  22. 25

    Most appeal brief conferences go like this…
    Spe: Why’d they appeal?
    Examiner: Stretched a reference on claim 178.
    Spe: And claims 1-177?
    Examiner: Solid.
    Spe: Reopen and add new art for 178.

    Also keep in mind that the quality/correctness of the prior OA is not the only motivating factor in re-opening versus writing an EA. We have stats we like to keep pretty, and most like to fly under the radar as much as possible.

    This from an examiner with ~1% appeal rate (none of which went to the board). In fact, for every decision we make, we ask the following questions: “Which stats will this affect? How important are those stats? How will it affect those stats?”

  23. 24

    There are probably a large number of “bad” rejections that are never appealed. This of course muddies the statistical picture, and would be hard to measure. I know I often would like to go upside the Examiner’s head with an Appeal Brief, but the client prefers to drop the case. An intelligent quality control process for Office Actions is badly needed, if such could possibly be designed or implemented.

  24. 23

    “So contrary to your whinning, this is not something newly added but something that has been there since day one. Get your facts straight for a change!!”

    What I said was, “Of course, what they don’t tell you is that they make that determination if there is even one rejection that is arguably ready for appeal. So if you have multiple rejections, and all but one is complete nonsense, you will be told to proceed to the Board. Once you file your Brief, they re-open prosecution. But because they mailed you a piece of paper telling you to proceed to the Board, they can claim that ‘quality is improving.'”

    And that’s exactly what they say when they send the (mis)management stooges to various conferences, bar association meetings, Congressional hearings, etc.

    They tell whatever audience they are in front of, “Our quality is improving as evidenced by the increase from 45% to 55%.”

    Do you think they tell the audience that that “statistic” is just phony made up nonsense because it in no way represents the number of cases that actually get to the Board in one try (either pre-appeal or appeal)?

    No, they don’t tell the audience that. And I know because I’ve been to meetings where they spew out this phony garbage.

  25. 22

    ===Specfically, it states “Finding 1: The application remains under appeal because there is at least one actual issue for appeal.”

    So contrary to your whinning, this is not something newly added but something that has been there since day one. Get your facts straight for a change!!===

    Like most guidance from the USPTO, the guidance provided is ambiguous. EVEN IF there is at least one rejection the examiner is comfortable with (i.e., there is at least one actual issue for appeal) but the examiner intends to reopen the prosecution after appeal to correct and/or withdraw other applications, then the application should immediately be reopened. It is a waste of both the examiner’s time and applicant’s money to have an appeal brief filed when the examiner already knows that the appeal will be withdrawn.

    I’ve had this happen to me a few times, and in part for this reason, I don’t give the examiner a chance to give me the runaround — I just go straight to appeal. If they reopen with equally bad art, I appeal them again and again until they call me up and suggest claim amendment or file an examiner’s answer.

    I don’t like playing these games …

  26. 20

    Dear Cal Patent Attorney:

    I agree with you:

    “The current downturn in the economy will keep examiner’s from leaving a safe government job (and lure new examiners), and the significant hiring and training efforts and other programs underway at the Patent Office to address the current situation will begin to bear fruit, and this problem is on track to solve itself. I say leave the beast alone, it’s not that far out of whack and the “cure” is likely to be worse than the “disease.”

  27. 19

    I attended the UC Davis Conference. Mr. Katznelson’s slides and information were not given the time they needed, as he was part of the second panel discussion, sharing his time with three others. The audience was thin on patent practitioners, so the specifics of his presentation were, I suspect, difficult for them to digest.

    Regarding the balance of the program, the first comment above only lists the four panelists from the first panel that focused on legislative changes. The second panel was focused on PTO rule changes and included Mr. Katznelson. A third panel focused on changes in the Courts, and included Chief Judge Paul Michel from the Federal Circuit. Mr. Serafini is a Partner in biotech from Fenwick and West, and was somewhat outnumbered, but made a decent defense. The other panels were similarly weighted with IT and academic panelists. Overall, the point of view of the patent attorney, the small inventor, and the patent examiner were not well represented. Hence, the consensus that arose was imperfect: we need more reform and the Patent Office is in trouble. Perhaps one silver lining: the panelists seemed to agree that patent reform is not likely to be a priority of the Obama administration.

    I wonder what Mr. Katznelson (and others) thinks of my prognosis. The current downturn in the economy will keep examiner’s from leaving a safe government job (and lure new examiners), and the significant hiring and training efforts and other programs underway at the Patent Office to address the current situation will begin to bear fruit, and this problem is on track to solve itself. I say leave the beast alone, it’s not that far out of whack and the “cure” is likely to be worse than the “disease.”

  28. 18

    Hey, justdarling,

    If you actualy READ the notice about the pre-appeal program (see link to uspto.gov ) it is not as you represnt (suprise!).

    The pre-appeal decison does NOT say ALL grounds would be ready for appeal. It only requires that ONE be.

    Specfically, it states “Finding 1: The application remains under appeal because there is at least one actual issue for appeal.”

    So contrary to your whinning, this is not something newly added but something that has been there since day one. Get your facts straight for a change!!

  29. 16

    “What is strange to me is that the number of appeals that reach the board has remained roughly constant over the last 13 years despite the total number of applications in the office increasing significantly.”

    This is not strange. The (mis)managers (e.g. TC Directors, SPE’s, QAS’s, etc.) are under orders to keep the number of cases going to the Board down. Hence the “appeal, re-open, appeal, re-open, appeal, re-open, etc.” nonsense that you see.

    Keep in mind also that the numbers provided by the PTO are completely phony. The PTO’s own statistics show that when the pre-appeal program started, only about 45% of the applications were determined to be ripe for appeal. They now claim that it’s about 55+%. Of course, what they don’t tell you is that they make that determination if there is even one rejection that is arguably ready for appeal. So if you have multiple rejections, and all but one is complete nonsense, you will be told to proceed to the Board. Once you file your Brief, they re-open prosecution. But because they mailed you a piece of paper telling you to proceed to the Board, they can claim that “quality is improving.”

    Phony made up nonsense.

  30. 15

    I would like to see a graph of the number of examiners with five or more years of experience for each of the past 15 years

  31. 14

    What is strange to me is that the number of appeals that reach the board has remained roughly constant over the last 13 years despite the total number of applications in the office increasing significantly.

    As such, without more data it’s tough to say what the graph on slide 15 really indicates, so I’m not sure we should be condemning the examiners prematurely.

  32. 13

    Perhaps the more important point is that whatever the ratio is, it HAS CHANGED much in the last 5 years. Couple this with the CHANGE in “allowance” rate in the same period and you begin to see a trend that cannot spell good news. This is perhaps a symptom of the real problem – Slide 7.

    Ron Katznelson

  33. 12

    David, you also forget that the BPAI always reviews de novo, whereas the standard of review in the judicial branch is often higher.

  34. 11

    I agree with Lionel. In my first sentence, I qualified it as error rate in “appealed” rejections, but I didn’t carry that qualifier through. True. Appeals are a biased sample, for reasons stated above.

    Show me any similar process that has a 90% reversal rate on appeal. In the 1970’s, the courts said that Social Security failed constitutional procedural due process when it had a 1/3 reversal rate on appeal.

  35. 10

    David,

    Your statistics may show that 92% or APPEALED rejections are bogus, but not 92% of rejections. I have appealed a number of cases, but I have not appealed many more. I most cases where I did not appeal, it was because the rejection had at least some merit.

  36. 9

    “The PTO’s own statistics show that EXAMINERS’ REJECTIONS HAVE A 90% ERROR RATE.”

    Calm down there bucko. You’re referring only to the cases that go to pre-appeal/appeal. Those are mighty few considering the total of applications. On my docket, which from what I hear is quite appeal heavy, I have less than 5% being appealed. So 80% OF LESS THAN 5% OF REJECTIONS ARE ERRORS. THAT’S, THAT’S, 3.something WHOLE PERCENT!!1111!!!!OMFG!!!

    Also, try to keep in mind that the 80% are rejections which the attorney has already reviewed and deemed questionable enough for an appeal. If the rejection is really horrid then, as everyone is well aware, a call to the SPE may well remedy the problem. And sometimes a questionable rejection is made, even though it is clear to the examiner that the rejection is questionable. Decisions must be made.

    “Is there any remaining question that the PTO’s “backlog” issue arises from careless examination, not from anything applicants are doing?”

    You’ve got the question backwards. You can’t read a graph apparently, and you sure as heck can’t interpret the results from one.

  37. 8

    “hey, just about EVERYONE except for the well-moneyed large IT firms and large banking firms OPPOSED this legislation – so WHY oh WHY was there NO representation of the other side????)”

    Because I willed it and it was so.

  38. 7

    David,
    There is a selection process that changes the Nash bargaining threat. An appeal costs ~$10k. The set of all filed appeals are already biased towards the applicant, so it appears that the examiner error rate is so high. If you look at all rejections, including those that were not appealed, the examiner error rate would be lower, although I suspect that it is too high.

    Ron Katznelson

  39. 5

    Oh good grief. I misread the graph. It’s worse.

    Under 16% of all rejections have enough merit to survive the first round of review on appeal.

    So 92% is the PTO’s ERROR rate, not its “quality rate.”

  40. 4

    The click-thru is not clear – this is the link for Dr. Katznelson’s slides –

    link to works.bepress.com

    The most important slide is No. 15. It shows that OVER EIGHTY PERCENT of appealed rejections are so completely bogus that no two other examiners will sign on to an Examiner’s Answer. Then of the <20% remaining that go to the Board, there's about a 50-50 split (well, actually slightly more reversals than affirmances)

    The PTO's own statistics show that EXAMINERS' REJECTIONS HAVE A 90% ERROR RATE.

    Is there any remaining question that the PTO's "backlog" issue arises from careless examination, not from anything applicants are doing?

  41. 3

    I give Ron K. an “A+” for at least providing factual evidence (as opposed to rhetorical nonsense) to address the issues relating to “patent reform.” He also gets high grades from me for putting the focus of patent reform on USPTO operations, something which the alleged “reformers”, such as the Coalition for Patent Fairness either don’t address, or address in a manner that would grievously injury the U.S. patent system.

  42. 2

    Kudos to Dr. Katznelson on a rigorous fact-filled presentation.
    On a more worrisome note, Dr. Katznelson’s presentation was part of a symposium on patent reform at UC Davis.

    Check out (SEE THE BOTTOM OF THIS COMMENT) who UC Davis invited for the “Patent Reform in Congress” panel – at least 3 of the 4 speakers are sworn supporters of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 [I assume that Andrew Serafini probably had to be diplomatic and neutral as his firm probably represents firms from both sides] WHERE IS THE BALANCE??????

    Why did UC Davis NOT invite the general counsel of a University technology transfer office or of a VC or of a startup or of a pharma company or of a traditional manufacturer (hey, just about EVERYONE except for the well-moneyed large IT firms and large banking firms OPPOSED this legislation – so WHY oh WHY was there NO representation of the other side????)

    ———————————–

    9:45 A.M. – 10:45 A.M.
    Patent Reform in Congress: Evolution in the Innovation Framework
    Wilkins Moot Courtroom and Room 2011, King Hall, UC Davis
    Moderator: Peter Lee, Acting Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
    Speakers:

    Mark Chandler, General Counsel, Cisco
    Jay Thomas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
    Andrew Serafini, Partner, Fenwick & West
    Doug Luftman, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Palm, Inc.

  43. 1

    Kudos to Dr. Katznelson on a rigorous fact-filled presentation.
    On a more worrisome note, Dr. Katznelson’s presentation was part of a symposium on patent reform.

    Check out who they invited for “Patent Reform in Congress” – at least 3 of the 4 speakers are sworn supports to Patent Reform Act of 2007 – where is the balance??????

    ————-

    9:45 A.M. – 10:45 A.M.
    Patent Reform in Congress: Evolution in the Innovation Framework
    Wilkins Moot Courtroom and Room 2011, King Hall, UC Davis
    Moderator: Peter Lee, Acting Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
    Speakers:

    Mark Chandler, General Counsel, Cisco
    Jay Thomas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
    Andrew Serafini, Partner, Fenwick & West
    Doug Luftman, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Palm, Inc.

Comments are closed.