Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR)
The Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR) is a conference designed to provide intellectual property practitioners, jurists, legal academics and law students with a review of IP cases from the U.S. Supreme Court's previous Term, a preview of cases on the docket for the upcoming Term, and a discussion of cert. petitions to watch.
The 7th annual Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR) will be held at Chicago-Kent on Thursday, September 22, 2016.
The SCIPR Address will be delivered by The Honorable Timothy B. Dyk, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Details about registration, CLE credits, the conference schedule and speakers will be available later this summer.
Friday, September 25, 2015
8:30 – 9:00 am
Registration and continental breakfast — sponsored by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
9:00 – 9:05 am
Welcome Remarks — Dean Harold J. Krent, Chicago-Kent College of Law
9:05 – 10:05 am — Trademark Panel
Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank (The jury, rather than a court, determines whether the use of an older trademark may be tacked to a newer one.)
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. (So long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are materially the same as those before a district court, issue preclusion should apply.)
Moderator: Sydney Kokjohn, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff
Panelists: Professor Christine Farley, American University; William Jay, Goodwin Procter LLP, counsel for B&B Hardware; Bart Lazar, Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Claudia Ray, Kirkland & Ellis; Mark Mutterperl, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, counsel for amicus INTA in Support of Respondents (Hana Bank)
10:10 – 10:55 am — Patent I Panel
Commil USA v. Cisco (A defendant's belief regarding patent validity is not a defense to an induced infringement claim.)
Moderator: Daniel Stringfield, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Panelists: Mark Strachan, Sayles | Werbner, counsel for Commil USA; Professor Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Texas A&M University School of Law; Professor Daryl Lim, John Marshall Law School, on brief Amici Curiae Sixteen Intellectual Property Law Professors in Support of the Respondent
10:55 – 11:10 am
11:10 – 11:55 am — Patent II Panel
Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz (When reviewing a district court's resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error," not a de novo, standard of review.)
Moderator: Robert Surrette, McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.
Panelists: William Jay, Goodwin Procter LLP, counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals; Professor Greg Reilly, California Western School of Law; Professor Melissa Wasserman, University of Illinois College of Law
12:00 – 1:00 pm
Lunch — sponsored by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
1:00 – 1:45 pm
Keynote Address: "Censorship in the Guise of Authorship: Harmonizing Copyright and the First Amendment"
The Honorable M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Emily Miao, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
1:45 – 2:00 pm
2:00 – 2:45 pm — Patent III Panel
Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. (declining to overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that "a patentee's use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.)
Moderator: David Clough, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Panelists: Thomas Saunders, WilmerHale, counsel for Marvel; David Applegate, Williams Montgomery & John, counsel for IPLAC as amicus curiae in support of neither party; Fiona Schaeffer, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, counsel for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York as amicus curiae in support of neither party
2:50 – 3:05 pm
Supreme Court Analytics on the Past Term
3:10 – 3:55 pm
Preview of the Upcoming Term: no IP cert. grants, cert. petitions to watch
Moderator: Professor Christopher Schmidt, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (dispute over tax on inventor's income)
(2) whether Nevada may refuse to extend to sister States haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada enjoys in those courts; and (3) whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent, should be overruled.
Cert denied in Google v. Oracle
Whether copyright protection extends to all elements of an original work of computer software, including a system or method of operation, that an author could have written in more than one way.
Petitions to watch
4:00 – 5:00 pm
Reception — sponsored by McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.