In the Spotlight

Videos: Panel Presentations from the CPIP 2018 Fall Conference

On October 11-12, 2018, CPIP hosted its Sixth Annual Fall Conference, IP for the Next Generation of Technology, at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia.

After the breakthrough technology that gave us the mobile technology revolution of the past fifteen years, another leap forward in technology is about to break out into consumer products and services. Our panelists addressed how IP rights and institutions can foster and support this technological advance and considered how IP helps creators, inventors, the creative industries, and the innovation industries move forward.

We are grateful for the panelists, moderators, and audience members who made our Sixth Annual Fall Conference such a huge success, and we hope you will enjoy the videos!

To watch the panel presentations, please click here.


Video: Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs Delivers Keynote Address at CPIP 2018 Fall Conference

On October 11-12, 2018, CPIP hosted its Sixth Annual Fall Conference, IP for the Next Generation of Technology, at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia.

Without doubt, the highlight of our conference was the keynote address by Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs—the inventor of the digital transmission technology for cell phones that gave birth to the smartphone revolution and the founder of Qualcomm. Dr. Jacobs has been a luminary in the telecommunications industry for many years, and he delighted conference attendees with endearing stories and wonderful insights from his inventive and commercial activities over the years.

We hope you will enjoy Dr. Jacobs’ keynote address as much as we do!

The video is available here, and it is embedded below:


Supreme Court to Address Constitutional Protection of Patents in Return Mail v. United States Postal Service

On October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, a case that turns on whether the government is a “person” who may petition to institute a covered business method (CBM) review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011.

Earlier this year, CPIP Senior Scholars Adam Mossoff and Kristen Osenga joined an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case in order to address the constitutional protection of patents when taken by government officials. The brief, written on behalf of 15 law professors by Professor Adam MacLeod, is a tour de force on the nature of patent infringement as a legal wrong (and thus as a legal cause of action) as distinguished from the nature of a government “taking.”

To read the amicus brief, please click here.


CPIP Hosts Sixth Annual Fall Conference at Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia

On October 11-12, 2018, CPIP hosted its Sixth Annual Fall Conference, IP for the Next Generation of Technology, at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia.

After the breakthrough technology that gave us the mobile technology revolution of the past fifteen years, another leap forward in technology is about to break out into consumer products and services. Our conference addressed how IP rights and institutions can foster and support this technological advance, whether it is in the development of the Internet of Things (IOT), the use of Big Data, the deployment of 3D printing, continued advances in streaming media, or in the myriad new business models that will arise from these technological and commercial innovations.

All of this will be fostered by and will benefit from stable and effective property rights in innovative technologies and creative arts. Contrary to the tread-worn claims that new technological developments make IP rights unnecessary, this conference considered how IP helps creators, inventors, the creative industries, and the innovation industries move forward.

To visit our conference website, please click here.


CPIP Scholars to Federal Circuit: Misapplication of Section 101 Undermines the Innovation Industries

On July 6, 2018, CPIP Founder Adam Mossoff and CPIP John F. Witherspoon Legal Fellow David Lund filed an amicus brief on behalf of 12 patent law scholars in American Axle v. Neapco Holdings, a case currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The brief was joined by CPIP Senior Scholars Chris Holman, Kristen Osenga, and Ted Sichelman.

The invention at issue in the case is a method of manufacturing engine components, which the district court found to be a “law of nature” and thus patent-ineligible subject matter. The amici argue that the district court improperly applied the Mayo-Alice test under Section 101 of the Patent Act in reaching this conclusion.

In particular, the amici note that claims assessed under Section 101 must be analyzed “as a whole” to ensure that the individual claim terms are not construed in isolation, as the district court did in this case. They point out how this case perfectly represents the problem of over-restrictiveness in patent-eligibility doctrine being created by the courts today that has resulted in legal uncertainty and undermined the innovation industries relying on reliable and effective patent rights.

To read the amicus brief, please click here.


CPIP Scholars Join Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Take Patent Case Testing Limits of CBM Reviews

On June 25, 2018, CPIP Senior Scholars Adam Mossoff and Kristen Osenga joined an amicus brief written on behalf of 15 law professors by Professor Adam MacLeod, a CPIP Thomas Edison Innovation Fellow for 2017 and 2018 and a member of CPIP’s growing community of scholars.

The brief, which was filed in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service and United States, asks the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in order to correct the erroneous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit below holding that the federal government can challenge the validity of issued patents in covered business method (CBM) reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The brief concludes:

The power to initiate a proceeding before the Board which implicates patent rights and liberties to use innovations is a significant right. Because the sovereign is immune from lawsuits and liability for infringement, it lacks the power that Congress has conferred upon infringers to contest the validity of a patent in a covered business method proceeding. The Federal Circuit wrongly conferred upon the Postal Service both the powers of a sovereign and the powers of a private right-holder who is charged with infringement, even as it excused the Postal Service from the legal disadvantages of both of those offices. We encourage the Court to grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision below.

To read the amicus brief, please click here.