IP academics and IP practitioners: two worlds?

Patently-O had noted: IP Scholars Conference 2009: This annual event will be held at Cardozo Law in NYC on August 6th and 7th, 2009. This is usually a large gathering of IP focused academics and academic minded individuals presenting original works-in-progress.

The conference seems to be more directed to academics than to "academic minded individuals." In any event, LBE made a proposal:

In a recent article “Are Patent Problems Stifling U.S. Innovation?”, BusinessWeek brings up the patent application backlog issue and further suggests that the presence of a patent quality problem
[see http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2009/id2009048_138177.htm ].
Various commentators, including Lemley/Moore and Quillen/Webster have suggested that continuation applications have contributed significantly both to the backlog and quality problems. In seeking modification of the rules on continuation practice, the USPTO relied upon arguments made in the Lemley/Moore paper, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations [Boston University Law Review, Vol. 84, p. 63, 2004 ]. The present paper finds that the dominance of “request for continued examination” form of continuing application undermines arguments and conclusions made in the 2004 paper, and that the rules proposed by the USPTO would have had negligible impact on the backlog problem. Further, the formulation of the patent quality problem in terms of an adjusted grant rate based on continuation applications contains flaws which place its viability in question. Although recent judicial decisions have altered the patent litigation landscape, the most pressing problem in the patent system remains one of inadequate resources to examine patent applications promptly and thoroughly. Add-on inspection steps, such as the proposed post-grant review [“opposition’] should not be considered in the absence of resolution of the basic problem.

***RCEs just keep going up-->

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/04/economic-downturn-downturn-in-patent-filings.html

***Sepately, at the 2009 SEALS conference-->

Speakers: Professor Lee Petherbridge, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Law School, On the Decline of the Doctrine of Equivalents (Mentor: Professor M. Scott Boone, Appalachian Law School); Professor Dennis Crouch, University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, Justifying Design Patents and the Protection of Industrial Designs (Mentor: Professor David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law); Professor Megan Carpenter, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, True Love Always: The Evolution of the Mix Tape in a Digital Age (Mentor: Professor Lucille Ponte, Florida Coastal School of Law); Professor Akilah Folami, Hofstra University School of Law, The Legitimacy Crisis with "Bona Fide" News: Entertaining News or News as Entertainment (Mentor: Professor André Cummings, West Virginia University College of Law).

**How far does the eBay case go? If an injunction is no longer automatic, or is not to be granted as a matter of course in patent cases, does this [A] have implications for the damages remedy in patent law (does the adjudicated infringer of a valid patent just pay damages for past infringement and then essentially pay a compulsory license going forward? is it more like a negotiated royalty, or does the continued, willful infringement after a damages award attract exemplary damages going forward?), and/or [B] how, if at all, does the SCOTUS’ emphasis on applying general equitable principles in patent cases affect remedies in copyright, trademark and other IP-related domains?

Moderator: Professor Lawrence Tung, University of Maryland School of Law.

Speakers: Professor Bruce Boyden, Marquette University Law School; Professor Tomas Gomez-Arostegui, Lewis & Clark Law School; Professor Thomas Folsom, Regent University School of Law; Professor M. Scott Boone, Appalachian School of Law.