PatCon 4

PatCon4On April 4th and 5th, the University of San Diego School of Law will host PatCon 4, the largest annual conference for patent law scholars.   Over 60 patent law, economics, and business professors—as well as Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley, USPTO Chief of Staff Andrew Brynes, and several district court patent pilot judges—will be participating.

In addition to panels on patent law doctrine, pharmaceutical & biotech patents, empirical studies of patents and litigation, remedies, commercialization, economic theory of patents, international patent law, and the history of patent law, PatCon will feature a “patent trolls” debate pitting Mark Lemley (Stanford) & Michael Meurer (BU) against John Duffy (Virginia) & David Schwartz (IIT-Chicago) on whether “hostility to patent trolls is not well justified theoretically or empirically and will likely result in bad law.”  (I’ll be there as well, presenting on a project that I’m working on that’s tentatively called “A Law and Economics Approach to Patent Assertion Entities.”)

PatCon offers up to 12.5 hours of CLE credit for attorneys. More information on PatCon can be found here.

8 thoughts on “PatCon 4

  1. 4

    I don’t know that I trust the pro-patent team lined up here. Why isn’t someone like Gene Quinn on the team? I would trust him. Duffy? He is a paid gun. (Have pen and paper will travel.

    Let’s face it that the real problem here is that we are missing real patent attorneys that understand patent law.

    The most basic principle of patent law:

    Claim scope is what is enabled by one skilled in the art. From that one sentence all of patent law flows. And Lemley is trying to kill that by his nonsense functional claiming attack. Shameful human being.

  2. 2

    That’s nice but you are over-reacting – no one is trying to spin away any data.

    More likely, this is just you, so used to spinning anything and everything seeing spin because that is what you would do.

    1. 2.1

      He seems to have spun himself into a state of delusion again. I notice too that he left out the part where the number of IPRs is shooting through the roof which was the main thrust of the article by Gene.

  3. 1

    In case someone tries to spin the litigation filing rates based on the “drop” observed in January 2014:

    The number of new patent cases filed in January 2014 was 322

    ….The number of new patent cases filed during February 2014 was 456

    Okay, so adjusting for the additional days in January we get an “effective” 505 cases filed in February. That’s a case/day rate increase of 60% from February to January!

    Quinn tries to spin this as a decline in the rates relative to the same months in 2013 but any m0r0n can see that the filing rates vary dramatically month to month so such a comparison is meaningless. The litigation filing rates are still very high indeed and there is no indication that they are “dropping dramatically” as was suggested following January’s blip.

    1. 1.1

      Blah blah blah Quinn tries to blah blah blah

      Year over year is a standard comparison technique Malcolm.

      Get over it.

      1. 1.1.1

        Year over year is a standard comparison technique

        That’s nice. It has nothing to do with Quinn’s pathetic attempt to spin away the February data.

        Again, since both you and Gene seem to have great difficulty with simple math, let’s revisit the situation. A month ago there was some excitement from the teabaggers over the prospect that the January numbers were the front end of some drastically plummeting levels of litigation. “All this anti-troll talk and ‘anti-patent’ legislation is unnecessary!” they cried, because patent litigation rates were plummeting downward.

        I and others noted that it was far too early to make that call, given the drastic month to month fluctations that are evident to any five year old who has seen the graph. We were right about that. The patent teabaggers were wrong and now we see how they react to the “bad” news: they lie about it. Anybody surprised?

        Of course not.


          MM you are so transparent. The fact that you left out the main thrust of the article that the IPRs were shooting through the roof indicates clearly that you are unethical and have misrepresented the post.

          But, I am not sure it would be possible to be slimier than you.

Comments are closed.