AIPLA Meeting

This Friday, I will be at the AIPLA annual conference in Washington DC as part of a panel on Blogging.  I have not done a blogging seminar in a long time — one of the last ones was in 2006 when Cathy Kirkman and I co-hosted a conference on the law of blogs and business of legal blogs.

The session is 2:00 pm –  3:30 pm on Friday, October 22. I will be speaking along with my former colleague Don Zuhn (MBHB, Patent Docs), Aaron Feigelson (Leydig, 1201 Tues), Karen Hazzah (Thomas Kayden, AllThingsPros), Jonathan Frieden (Odin Feldman, ECommerceLaw), and Jake Ward (Fraser Clemens, AnticipateThis).

I look forward to seeing you there!

Read the Annual Meeting Program

13 thoughts on “AIPLA Meeting

  1. 12

    I agree with you IANAE that the AIPLA presenters all seemed to be of one mind, one group-think, on various issues. Speaker after speaker noted, for example, the “positive” trend in damages, meaning, in their view, that the PO should have the “burden” of proving apportionment even when, for example, the seller has no separte market for the patented component. The closing sentence of a former president, in his remarks, openly suggested that if the PO could not prove apportionment, that he be denied damages.

    All and all, the AIPLA membership seemed extremely hostile to the patent system and seemed fondly to embrace anything that weakened patents or increased burdens on the small entity. The word TROLL was bandied about without end, with a seeming underlying assumption that every NPE was a troll, and that every troll was the personification of ….. Well, you fill in the blank. If I do, this post will not survive the filter.

    Clearly, the AIPLA is no longer a balanced organization, but has become the tool of one lobbying group.

  2. 11

    On Saturday, one of the speakers summarized development in patent law the past year. He briefly discussed In re Giacomini – noting the dicta of the Federal Circuit that the disclosure relied on the be prior art must have “support” in the provisional application. (The printed materials coming is remarks said the decision of the Federal Circuit held that “patent applications” were prior art as of the filing date of the provisional.)

    What struck me was that the speaker did not find anything unusual in the fact that the Federal Circuit required “support” in the provisional application as opposed to merely finding that the disclosure was carried forward.

  3. 10

    The consensus view seemed to be that adding a “microprocessor” might be enough;

    This is what happens when a bunch of people on the same side of a particular issue get together to discuss that issue.

    Also, this: Essentially he was arguing the continuing viability of State Street Bank.

    And this: While it was noted that the courts have yet to approve Beauregard claims, no panelist raised the issue of whether or not they actually were patentable subject matter.

    No, a microprocessor is not enough. Assuming that the disembodied software is abstract (why else would you need to claim the hardware?), the use with a microprocessor preempts all applications of the abstract concept.

  4. 9

    “For the record – immediately after the panel presentation, Dennis was mobbed by fans. It’s official – among patent geeks, Prof. Crouch has achieved rock-star status! :)”

    lulz of course.

  5. 5

    For the record – immediately after the panel presentation, Dennis was mobbed by fans. It’s official – among patent geeks, Prof. Crouch has achieved rock-star status! :)

    Seriously, it was a solid discussion covering a goo drainage of issues. Kudos to all presenters.

  6. 4

    AIPLA Patent law committee – 101 discussion

    I attended the AIPLA, committee meeting yesterday. The topic of discussion generally was Bilski. There was a lively discussion on various software claims and just how much computer hardware one had to put into the claim to make it a “specific machine.” The consensus view seemed to be that adding a “microprocessor” might be enough; but there seems to be a divergence between the PTO and the courts on this issue. The courts seem to be trending to requiring a lot more.

    Another panelist was discussing the gap between “abstract ideas” and subject matter that passes the MOT. Essentially he was arguing the continuing viability of State Street Bank.

    There was a brief discussion on Beauregard claims. While it was noted that the courts have yet to approve Beauregard claims, no panelist raised the issue of whether or not they actually were patentable subject matter. The discussion focused on In re Nuitjen, which held that “signals” were not articles of manufacture. The PTO is now taking the position that if a claim is not specifically limited to “non-transitory” media, it necessarily includes “signals.” The PTO is also saying that adding such a claim limitation does not constitute new matter.

    Finally, a third panelist discussed the patentability of biotechnology inventions. Generally she asserted that claims of the form “assaying” followed by “correlating” generally related to patentable subject matter. (I was struck however that such claims may not be “new” under the printed matter doctrine since the only thing new in such a claim claim is information. Everything else is old.)

    There is also a discussion as to why the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Prometheus. Most panelists were of the opinion that the Federal Circuit would hold the claims patentable because the administration of a drug to human was always “transformative.” There is no serious discussion of whether the administration of a drug to human and then testing its natural effect was a phenomena of nature even if it was also transformative, and how this might affect the result.

    Finally, the last panelist advised that there was a relationship between section 112 and section 101. If the claims were not specific enough, but instead were rather vague and indefinite, there was a greater chance that they be held to be a violation of section 101. She advised to place the “preamble” objective as the last step in the claim. In other words, if you follow all the steps in the claim, you obtain the following result.

  7. 3

    I wish I could be there. But the next best thing. I finally was able to match August 26, 1997. They were there all the time. And I thought I was all alone. For every action there was a reaction. And now I know why 10 years of distance was given to both.
    Hal I hope you go and tell me all about it LULZZZZZZZZ.
    And Gene sorry I thought it was you. Someone on Facebook said they were you. And told me how bad it was to take you off my Friends list.

  8. 1

    The AIPLA annual conference looks like a Blog-o-tainment event. You got:

    1. Blog On! Thoughts on Patent Blogging from Inside and Outside the Blogosphere
    2. Information Lag? Information Blag! Patent and Other Law Blogs as Sources of Information and Research Tools
    3. Legal Issues Involved in Blogging
    4. A Stumbling Blog Before the Blind? The Troll Tracker and IP Watchdog Cases
    5. Blog Panel Discussion:
    • Dennis Crouch, University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO
    • Donald Zuhn, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, Chicago, IL

    Blog On, Dudes!

Comments are closed.