L-R: The Hon. Phillip Calabrese, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (N.D. Ohio); The Hon. Theodore Essex, Hogan Lovells and former Chief ALJ, U.S. Trade Commission; The Hon. Daniel Polster, N.D. Ohio; The Hon. Robert Kinder, PTAB; The Hon. James Gwin, N.D. Ohio; and The Hon. Ryan Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The 25th annual Symposium on Intellectual Property Law and Policy, held on March 27, lived up to its billing as the Midwest’s premier annual intellectual property law CLE, with about 100 registrants in attendance and an engaging program.
“Our primary purpose is to provide a high-quality program that attracts IP law practitioners to the University,” said Mark Schultz, Goodyear chair in IP law and director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology. “Events like this serve our local legal community while giving our students the opportunity to learn from and network with practitioners.”
One of the highlights of the day was the topic, Effective and Ethical Use of Experts in Litigation: Views from the Bench and Bar. The views from the bench came from a panel of six federal judges, including Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence Professor of Law and Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims, the Hon. Ryan T. Holte, who served as the moderator.
Other panels and presentations included: Serving the MedTech in Our Region: Building a Practice and a Business Community; The Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court Are Coming: The Biggest Global IP Development Since the AIA; and After the Acquisition: Ensuring Your Client Can Keep and Use All the IP Assets It Just Bought.
Camilla Hrdy
Akron Law Professor of Intellectual Property Law Camilla Hrdy moderated a panel on Trade Secret Claims: Choosing Your Clients' Battles and presented her article, "Beyond Trade Secrecy: Confidentiality Agreements That Act Like Non-Competes," co-authored with Chris Seaman. The article was recently accepted by the Yale Law Journal. It may be viewed or downloaded on SSRN.
According to the abstract, there is a substantial literature on non-compete agreements and their adverse impact on employee mobility and innovation. But a far more common restraint in employment contracts has fallen under the radar—confidentiality agreements, sometimes called nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). Despite widespread use, confidentiality agreements have received little attention. Many commentators view them as innocuous compared to non-competes. However, confidentiality agreements are not harmless. Many are nearly as restrictive as non-competes.
Gene Quinn
The luncheon keynote speaker was Gene Quinn, founder, CEO & president of IP Watchdog, a top source for news and opinion on IP law and policy. Quinn commented on the ways that the Supreme Court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the federal circuit courts, and corporate giants like Apple, Google and Cisco have worked to constrain IP rights in the United States from the rights holder’s perspective.
“And there is a fourth group that is also responsible for the plight of the IP system—you all, the IP industry,” he said. “Because as rights have been taken away, nobody is standing up and talking about what’s really going on.”
If there is a bright note, Quinn said in conclusion, it’s that we’ve been here before.
“Some old timers who lived through the ‘70s, when it got really bad, tell me not to give up, that in the ‘80s it got better. Because of competition from Japan, the patent system was reinvigorated. I think the way forward may be through [the similar concern today] about China as a geopolitical and geo-economic adversary.”