On October 22, 2020, I coordinated a panel at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on "The collision between the first amendment and trademark law". Moderator was Jeniifer Van Kirk and panelists were Lauren Emerson, Paul Safier, Nicole Berkowitz and Alison Malsbury.
On October 7, I spoke on a panel at the AIPPI annual virtual meeting on Copyright and Covid 19. Topics were "How have or will Covid effect the interpretation of exemptions in copyright law" amd "User generated content".
The panel was moderated by Prof Sanna Wolk from Stockholm and in addition to me included Prof Avv. Alessandro Enric Cogo from Italy and Attorney Nathan Yang from NTD IP Attorneys in China.
On October 2, 2020, I moderated a panel at the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) on Patenting Computer Related Inventions. This panel discusssed developments in Canada and the U.S. including the new Choueifaty decision in Canada. Panelists were Hugh Mansfield at Lavery and Jerry Selinger at Patterson Sheridan.
In May 2017 I reported on the trial decision of Mr. Justice Russell, in The Governors of the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services v.
Post sale rights post Lexmark. Implications for U.S. and foreign patent owners and licensees.
The Supreme Court disallows post sale restrictions
The Supreme Court of the United States in Lexmark v. Impression Products 581 U.S. 1523 (2017) May 30, 2017 has disallowed any patent post sale restrictions following the sale of a patented article from the patent owner or any licensee from the patent owner.
Claim Interpretation and Patent Infringement
What’s the big deal?
It’s only words, and as lawyers we are used to reading words.
Words inherently imprecise.
If it’s a contract we try to look at surrounding circumstances to see what the parties intended?
Can we do that in a patent specification?
Does it matter what the inventor intended? If not way not?
A patent claim has a public function. It is not a matter of interpreting the party’s intention.