Welcome to the website for the Fourth Annual Symposium of the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property. The Symposium will be hosted in Wieboldt Hall (339 E. Chicago Ave.) on the Chicago Campus of Northwestern University on March 6th, 2009. Once again, the Symposium is free and open to the public. Lunch will be provided, and a cocktail reception will follow the day's events. Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit is available for $225 and is payable at the Symposium. Please contact the development editor, Michael Hammer, with your name, business and events you expect to attend.
In 2008, a divided Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Office rejection of a particular business method pertaining to hedging risks in commodities trading because it did not contain patentable matter. At the heart of the decision was the issue of when a process is patentable. The court relied upon the “machine-or-transformation” test for patentability which requires that a process 1) is tied to a particular machine or apparatus or 2) transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. Mr. Bob Irvine, a partner at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, will argue that business method patents should be patentable, while Ms. Lauren Katzenellenbogen, a partner at Knobbe Martens, will argue against patenting business methods. Mr. Dave Donoghue, a partner at Holland & Knight and creator/author of the Chicago IP Litigation Blog will moderate the debate. (The positions taken are for advocacy purposes and do not necessarily reflect the attorney's personal views or the views of the attorney's firm).
The Chief Justice for the United States District for the Northern District of Illinois will present his "Ten Commandments for Conducting an Intellectual Property Jury Trial."
The United States patent system is constantly evolving. Recently patent reform bills have been considered by the United States Congress. Although no law has been passed, it is likely only a matter of time before changes are enacted. The Patent Office attempted to unilaterally modify the rules regarding continuation patents and number of claims in a patent, but a district court ruling found that the Patent Office did not have this power. Dr. Chris Singer, a partner at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, will discuss the Tafas v. Dudas decision and the effects the proposed changes would have had on their practice. Prof. Sean Seymore from Washington & Lee University School of Law and Prof. Matthew Sag from DePaul University College of Law will add viewpoints from outside the practicing legal community.
In most technology businesses employees are asked to innovate. Both the company and the employee have an obvious interest in owning any creations. This is typically accomplished through invention assignment agreements. The DDB v. MLB case seemingly enhances the rights of employers by disallowing statute of limitations and laches defenses when there is an automatic assignment under the agreement. Mr. Mike Baniak, a partner at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, and Mr. Todd Dawson, the Vice President of Legal Affairs at Zimmer, Inc., will discuss the best ways for protecting a client’s interests (whether the individual or the company) in an invention assignment agreement following this case.
