| January 12 |
The Patent Office Comes to Utah
Appeals and Late Stage Prosecution |
| Moderator: |
Lesley Morris, Supervisory
Patent Examiner of Art Unit 3611 |
| Panelists: |
Glenn Dayoan, Supervisory
Patent Examiner of Art Unit 3612
Paul Dickson, Supervisory
Patent Examiner of Art Unit 3616
Michael Carone, Supervisory
Patent Examiner of Art Unit 3641 |
| February 16 |
 |
| Agenda: |
Online |
| March 15 |
European Patent Convention
2000 |
| |
The EPC 2000 will come into force in December 2007
and will introduce the most comprehensive changes to European patent
law since introduction of the European Patent Convention. |
| Speaker: |
Dr.
Holger Adam, Kraus & Weisert, Munich, Germany |
| June 14 |
Overview of Utah's New Inventor Organization, www.UtahInventor.org,
for Corporate, University and Independent Inventors, and development
of committee opportunities for IP Attorneys |
| Speaker: |
Vaughn North |
| September 20 |
Internet Surveys and Intellectual
Property Litigation |
| Speaker: |
Glenn
L. Christensen, Assistant Professor of Business Management,
Marriot School of Management, Brigham Young University |
| October 12 |
IP Social |
| October 25 |
Inequitable Conduct for Failure to Submit
Information from a Co-Pending Application: McKesson Information
Solutions v. Bridge Medical (Fed. Cir. 2007) |
| Speaker: |
Ari
Gilder, Woodcock Washburn LLP, Seattle, Washington |
| November 14 |
Does the Supreme Court Understand B2B Technology
Transactions? |
| Speaker: |
Sean O'Connor, Professor
of Law, University of Washington School of Law; Visiting Professor,
Kauffman Fellow in Law & Entrepreneurship, University of California
Berkeley School of Law |
| |
Ever since Lear v. Adkins, the Supreme Court
seems to primarily view IP licenses and technology transactions with
great suspicion. In particular, the justices appear to view most
licenses through the lens of litigation settlements or coercive contracts
foisted on reluctant licensees. While there are indeed many cases
of objectionable mass market consumer licenses and aggressive licensing
tactics by so-called "trolls," these sensational stories
are arguably only one possibly dysfunctional corner of an otherwise
socially useful, well functioning IP and technology transactions
market. Sophisticated business parties, including beneficial non-manufacturing
patent owners such as universities, routinely engage in mutually
voluntary discussions and arrangements that enable increasingly complicated
products and services to be brought to the market. In fact, some
argue that the success of Silicon Valley is due in large part to
its emphasis on focused companies that are neither vertically nor
horizontally integrated, but instead contract with others to commercialize
a product or service. IP licenses are the critical glue that enable
this to happen. If the Supreme Court continues to jeopardize the
legal certainty of IP licenses, as it did in the case of MedImmune
v. Genentech, technology hubs including Salt Lake City could see
disruptions in their tech sectors. The talk will conclude with one
particular suggestion for mitigating the challenges of
MedImmune for non-manufacturing patent owners such as universities. |
| December 10 |
New Patent Rules in the Wake of GSK |
| Speaker: |
Michael W. Farn & Robert Hulse, Fenwick &
West LLP, Mountain View, California |
