While commentators might disagree over the magnitude of change, there is little dispute that over the last two years, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have rendered decisions that have impacted the manner in which plaintiffs and defendants have approached patent infringement claims. Some feel these recent decisions strengthen patent rights, while others feel they limit the scope of patent protection and discourage innovation. Were these decisions the result of increased litigation involving patent licensing companies (the so-called patent trolls), or the result of curtailing bad patents?
This panel discussed recent cases applying these decisions and their impact on their company’s strategy:
- The Aftermath of KSR: How to succeed with, or defeat, an obviousness challenge
- In re Bilski: Must a business method be tied to an apparatus or machine to be patentable, and do we stifle innovation by having this requirement?
- To Enjoin or Not Enjoin in view of eBay: Has this decision unfairly limited a patentee’s ability to get an injunction?
- Is There a Contractual Solution to Medlmmune?: Can you craft appropriate license clauses to discourage licensees from challenging a patent’s validity later?
- Value of Opinions Post-Seagate: Are opinions of counsel still worth the paper they are written on?
Panelists for this session include: Andrea Augustine, Partner, IP Litigation Practice; Pavan K. Agarwal, Partner, IP Litigation Practice; Charles Kwalwasser, Vice President and Intellectual Property Counsel, Lehman Brothers Inc.; David Moyer, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Chevron Global Upstream & Gas; Michael Springs, Assistant General Counsel, Bank of America; and Earle Thompson, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, SanDisk Corporation.