From the Macintosh to the iPhone: Steve Jobs Patent Exhibit Opens at Denver Public Library

Exhibit opens ahead of ribbon-cutting of Denver’s satellite patent office

Denver, CO – A life-sized exhibit showcasing the hundreds of patents that Steve Jobs holds to his name, and that of Apple, the company he founded and helmed for nearly three decades, opens today at the Denver Public Library’s Central Library in downtown Denver.

The exhibit, entitled “Patents and Trademarks of Steve Jobs: Art and Technology that Changed the World,” will be on display through September. It is free and open to the public.

“We’re thrilled to host the Steve Jobs exhibit as it showcases the collaborative relationship we’ve built with innovators across the West,” Diane Lapierre, Director of Community Relations for the Denver Public Library, said. “Our Patent and Trademark Research Center helps connect inventors and business people with the information, resources, and direction they need to succeed. This exhibit lets others see the complex and groundbreaking work that led to some of the greatest technological advances of our times.”

The exhibit is on loan from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), arriving 10 days ahead of the grand opening of Denver’s satellite office of the USPTO, scheduled for June 30. The Mile High City’s selection as a location for a satellite office is expected to bring hundreds of direct jobs and millions in economic development to the state and region.

“This exhibit provides a unique glimpse into one of our country’s most iconic innovators, highlighting Jobs’ wide-ranging portfolio and lasting influence on modern technology,” Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet said. “The U.S. patent process plays a critical role in making ideas come to life and we’re thrilled to bring that process even closer to Colorado entrepreneurs and inventors with the opening of the USPTO’s satellite office in Denver.”

“Our city, state, and region continue to make their mark on the intellectual property world with the opening of the USPTO Denver office,” John Posthumus, an intellectual property attorney with Sheridan Ross P.C. and a key player in helping to secure the Denver USPTO office, said. “The Steve Jobs patent and trademark exhibit serves as the perfect visual and educational tool to share the importance and global impact of one of the world’s leading innovators and entrepreneurs. The exhibit’s Denver visit is a tribute to all who have worked so diligently to get us to this point, as well as a peek into Colorado’s future role in the world of innovation. There’s no doubt that we’ll look back at the opening of the Denver USPTO office as a game changing moment in our history.”

Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet helped coordinate the state’s bipartisan effort to bring the satellite office to Colorado. This included securing an amendment in the 2011 patent reform law directing the USPTO to establish three satellite offices nationwide, working with the state’s business community and local governments to attract the office, and leading several letters from Colorado’s Congressional delegation urging the Administration and the USPTO to choose Colorado as a location for a satellite office.

USPTO Opening Gala & CLE Information – REGISTER TODAY!

Colorado Celebrates the Opening of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office
Rocky Mountain Regional Satellite Office in Denver

Hosted by the Rocky Mountain IP Collective with support from the Colorado IP Inn of Court and the Colorado Bar Association Intellectual Property Section

For further details and registration, please visit our website:
www.rm-ipcollective.com

Join us for ALL THREE PROGRAMS:

Grand Opening Gala

Monday, June 30th
5:30pm-10:00pm

Wings Over the Rockies
Air & Space Museum

$40 ($50 after 6/22)

Lunch & CLE

Tuesday, July 1st
11:45am-5:15pm

Century Link
Conference Center

$25

CLE & Networking Reception

Tuesday, July 1st
5:30pm-8:15pm

The Ritz Carlton
Downtown

$25

(details for each below)

USPTO Denver Grand Opening Gala – Monday, June 30th


Location: Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum
7711 E. Academy Boulevard, Denver, CO 80230

To Register, Click Here

Early Registration: $40 (until June 22nd).
Regular Registration: $50.
Time: 5:30 pm-10:00pm – Spouses and significant others welcome.
Cocktail attire.

Featuring:  Live music, cocktail reception, dinner, dessert, speakers from the USPTO and Colorado’s leaders, and an opportunity to view the exhibits in the Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum.

Lunch & CLE – Tuesday, July 1st (4 CLE General Credits)

Location: Century Link Conference Center
1801 California, Denver, CO 80202

To Register, Click Here

AGENDA:

11:45am-1:00pm

Lunch at Guard & Grace Restaurant, 1st floor

“How Recent Supreme Court IP Decisions Will Affect Your Practice”

Speakers:

  • Hal Wegner, Foley & Lardner, LLP
  • Q. Todd Dickinson, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • John Posthumus, Sheridan Ross, PC

1:15pm-1:45pm

Session 1 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor“New Initiatives to Harmonize Global Patents”

Speaker:

  • Mark Powell, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

1:45pm-2:15pm

Session 2 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor“ProBoPat: Pro Bono Patent Opportunities”

Speakers:

  • Ben Fernandez, Faegre Baker Daniels
  • Sue Purvis, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

2:15pm-2:30pm

Break

 

2:30pm-3:30pm

Session 3 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor

“Moving Prosecution Forward I: Proper Use of Interviews and RCEs”

Speakers:

  • Kathleen Ott, Merchant & Gould
  • Barry Schindler, Greenberg Traurig
  • Glenn Johnson, Microsoft

 

3:30pm-4:00pm

Session 4 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor

“Trademark Basics: What Every Small Business Should Know Now, Not Later”

Speaker:

  • Craig Morris, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

 

4:00pm-4:10pm

Break

 

4:10pm-5:15pm

Session 5 at Century Link Conference Center, 1st floor

“Moving Prosecution Forward II: Proper Use of Appeals and Pre-Appeal Conferences”

Speakers:

  • Stephen Kunin, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt
  • Mike Drapkin, Holland & Hart
  • Matthew Colagrosso, Covidien

CLE & Networking Reception- Tuesday, July 1st (2 CLE General Credits)

Location: The Ritz Carlton
1881 Curtis Street, Denver, CO 80202

To Register, Click Here

AGENDA:

5:30-6:00 pm

Reception/Happy Hour

6:00-7:00 pm

Session 1 at The Ritz CarltonDistrict of Colorado Pilot Program Implementing Proposed Patent Local Rules: Panel Discussion with Local Judges and Practitioners

Moderated panel discussion including overview of pilot program, detailed discussion of merits of proposed rules, and potential impacts and effects of same.

Moderated by:

  • Kristopher L. Reed, Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP

Panelists:

  • Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger, U.S. District Court of Colorado
  • Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, U.S. District Court of Colorado
  • Wayne Stacy, Cooley LLP
  • Jon R. Trembath, Lathrop & Gage LLP

7:00-7:15 pm

Break

7:15-8:15 pm

Session 2 at The Ritz Carlton

Post-Grant Procedures Under the America Invents Act: Roundtable discussion with PTAB Administrative Law Judges

Moderated roundtable discussing various post-grant procedures, including comparison amongst the procedures and with validity disputes in district court.

Moderated by:

  • Bernard Chao, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver

Panelists:

  • Chief Judge James D. Smith
  • PTAB Judge Patrick Boucher
  • PTAB Judge Kristina M. Kalan

Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium

Click HERE to register!

Download (PDF, 679B)

Save the Date — USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Visit

More details, such as venues, agendas, and webcast access information will be published HERE.

Please click HERE to download a PDF version of the flyer.

Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses

University of Colorado Law Review
Proudly Presents
Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Use

By Brad Greenberg

February 18, 2014 at 5:15 PM
University of Colorado Law School Room 204

Mr. Greenberg published his article on copyright trolls in the Colorado Law Review, Volume 85. He will discuss the fair use doctrine as copyright law’s internal limitation on the enforcement-only business model.

Mr. Greenberg is an Intellectual Property Fellow at Columbia University’s Kernochan Center. His Scholarship focuses on laws that encourage, restrict, or regulate speech and technological development, with an emphasis on legal questions raised by disruptive innovation. He graduated from UCLA with a degree in communication studies and, after a five-year journalism career, from UCLA School of Law. During law school he served as Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review and was a Copyright Society Paul Miller Scholar.

This event is eligible for one general CLE credit.

Pricing
Students: Free
Law Review Alumni: $5
Non-Law review Alumni: $10

To Register: Click here

Pondering Patent Jury Verdict Forms

By Bernard Chao1

Most attorneys don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how to draft a proposed jury verdict form. However, a recent paper written by one of my students, Vanessa Otero, reminded me how important this document can be. A well thought out jury verdict form has the potential to prevent a lot of wasted time and effort on behalf of both the patentee and the defendant.

Otero’s paper entitled “How Much Is Really at Stake? Damages Statutes Collide in Multiple-IP Litigation” will be published in in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. The paper uses the Apple v. Samsung litigation to discuss the complexities that arise in calculating damages when the defendant’s products are accused of infringing different types of intellectual property. As many us know by now, Samsung was found to infringe Apple’s utility patents, design patents, and trade dress. But despite all these theories, the verdict form was surprisingly simple with respect to damages. The jury was just asked to determine the total damages due for each infringing product. Otero’s paper argues that in the future, jury verdict forms should ask juries to allocate damages for each different type of infringement. This should help parties avoid retrying damages in the event that post-trial motions or appeals alter the verdict. It will also help judges determine whether to enhance or reduce damages awards. Although Otero does not suggest that a more detailed jury verdict would have prevented the second damages trial in Apple v. Samsung, she does argue that it would have avoided some of the post-trial disputes.

Of course most cases are not as complicated as the Apple v. Samsung litigation and don’t involve different types of intellectual property. But lawsuits involving multiple patents are fairly common. After thinking about Otero’s paper, I wondered what patent jury verdict forms look like in cases with multiple patents. I looked at a few such cases on Lex Machina, a database that crawls PACER for information on all district court patent cases, and contacted a few patent litigators I know. In this very small and unscientific sample, I found both verdict forms that did and did not ask the jury to break out damages on a per patent basis. Furthermore, based on my conversations, I got the impression that the litigators did not give a lot of thought to this particular detail of the verdict form. But perhaps they should.

My belief is that Otero’s insight makes sense for almost all cases that involve more than one patent. Let’s just take the easiest example. Assume the patentee prevailed at trial on two patents and was awarded $5,000,000. If the verdict is appealed and the Federal Circuit reverses on one of the patents and affirms on the other, the parties will be forced to retry damages. Presumably, there will no way for the courts to determine how much of the $5,000,000 should be attributed to the patent that was affirmed. Since there is no reason to believe that a second damages trial would favor either party, such a trial does no one any good. The parties could have avoided the additional expense by simply asking the jury to break out damages on a per patent basis.

Now there may well be countervailing interests. I know that many plaintiffs prefer simple jury verdict forms so that defendants can’t pick a part the verdict. But breaking out damages for each patent should not unduly open up a verdict to challenge. Asking the jury to break down damages on a per patent basis just may be one of those rare suggestions that saves everyone money!

1Assistant Professor the University of Denver Strum College of Law.

November 2013 IP Section Luncheon

Restoration of Priority
What will Change on December 18, 2013

Carl Oppedahl — Partner in Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC

Tuesday, November 19, 2013; 12:00 PM Denver ChopHouse

A client comes to you on December 20, 2013. The client filed a US provisional patent application on December 17, 2012. Clearly the one-year period has come and gone! What should you tell them about their ability to file a PCT patent application that claims priority from the US provisional patent application? How does your answer change if the application to be filed is a US non-provisional patent application? How do your answers change if the would-be priority application filed December 17, 2012 was a foreign patent application instead of a US provisional patent application? (Hint: Everything you knew about this is wrong!) Extra credit if you can say why it might be smart to file the PCT patent application in the Receiving Office of the International Bureau of WIPO rather than at the USPTO.

Cost: $35 for IP Section Members, $45 for the general public, and CU/DU Law students are free. Includes a catered lunch. You can register for the lunch clicking HERE. RSVP by calling (303) 860-1115 ext. 727 or by emailing lunches@cobar.org before 5 PM on Thursday, November 14, 2013.

1 general CLE credit applied for.

Cancellations after Thursday, November 14, 2013 and no-shows will be billed for the cost of the program. Checks can be sent to the Colorado Bar Association, 1900 Grant St., Suite 900, Denver, CO 80203. Also, please call or e-mail your RSVP when sending a check. Checks should be made payable to the CBA. If leaving a message, please spell your name, specify that you are attending the Intellectual Property Section November Luncheon, leave your phone number, and specify if you would prefer a vegetarian lunch.

October 2013 IP Section Luncheon

A Report form the Frontline of Privacy Wars

Paul Ohm, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School

Thursday, October 10, 2013; 12:00 PM Denver ChopHouse

Please join Paul Ohm, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School, in a discussion about the current state of privacy and privacy law. Professor Ohm spent the past year working in Washington, DC, as a Senior Policy Advisor for the Federal Trade Commission, and he will reflect in particular on how the FTC regards and administers its role in preserving consumer privacy. He will draw from controversies that flared in the past year, such as debates over the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, Do Not Track, Data Security, and mobile privacy.

Cost: $35 for IP Section Members, $45 for the general public, and CU/DU Law students are free. Includes a catered lunch. You can register for the lunch by going to: http://www.cobar.org/cle/item.cfm?eventid=IP101013. RSVP by calling (303) 860-1115 ext. 727 or by emailing lunches@cobar.org before 5 PM on Monday October 7, 2013.

What’s in a Name

Senator Bennet’s office is soliciting suggestions for the name of Denver’s new PTO satellite office. Detroit’s office is named after Elijah J. McCoy, an African-American inventor who settled in Michigan and contributed many inventions to the field of locomotives and steam engines. Know of a great Colorado inventor? Submit your ideas below:

Last year, the U.S. Department of Commerce selected Colorado for a new regional patent office. The office will help cement Colorado’s reputation as a hub for innovation, attract businesses and entrepreneurs, bring hundreds of high-paying jobs and pump nearly $440 million into our state’s economy during its first five years.

We’re working with the USPTO and the Department of Commerce to get the office open as quickly as possible. This week we’re beginning the process to help pick a name for the it.

For two weeks, we’re crowdsourcing, or COLORADOsourcing, suggestions for a name for Colorado’s new patent office. Tell us who your favorite Colorado innovators are and why we should name the new patent office after them. Or, if you have an idea for a name that isn’t a person, we’re all ears! You can also “up vote” your favorite ideas.

At the end of the two weeks, we’ll submit the top ideas to the Commerce Department for consideration.

This forum is open now and will be until Friday, August 9.

To share your ideas and participate in our online discussion, follow these simple steps:

1. Step in. Follow this link at any point during the next week: http://crowdhall.com/h/61

2. Speak up and share an idea here during my two week online forum.

3. Vote on your favorite ideas.

4. Stay tuned or receive notifications when we respond to the results.

We look forward to hearing from you and seeing all of the suggestions.

Sincerely,

Michael F. Bennet

Much Ado about NPEs

-Nina Wang, Partner, Faegre Baker Daniels

Recently, patent assertion entities, or non-practicing entities (NPEs), or trolls – depending where you are on the spectrum – have been getting a lot of attention. At the beginning of June, Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit, along with two law school professors, wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times entitled “Make Patent Trolls Pay in Court.” That same month, the Executive Office of the President released a report on “Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation.” Then, the Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez announced that the FTC would launch a study of NPE activities by using its authority under the FTC Act. The U.S. Government Accounting Office is in the midst of a study trying to quantify the costs of patent litigation. And recently, the New York Times published a series of articles about patent assertion entities, including one on IPNav and its founder, Erich Spangenberg and Intellectual Ventures.

One of the articles recounted how IPNav and Spangenberg helped companies on the brink of financial disaster, like Parallel Iron, monetize their patents and generate a sizeable profit for IPNav and Spangenberg personally. Another quotes Peter Detkin of Intellectual Ventures describing patent litigation as “just another form of licensing.” A New York Times writer posits that maybe these patent assertion entities are just profiting from a “flawed and creaky legal system.” Other industry experts predict that there will be a push for legislation to take care of the “troll” issue, with the state of Vermont and various measures in the Congress, including the SHIELD Act and the Patent Abuse Act, leading the way. Indeed, last Thursday, the Attorney General of Nebraska issued a cease and desist letter against a law firm that has filed several lawsuits on behalf of non-practicing entities barring it from initiating any new patent lawsuits in Nebraska.

The reality is that there is no quick fix for the issues facing clients involved in frivolous litigation in federal court (whether patent cases or otherwise). Even if all of the proposed legislation in Congress today passed, the proposals often contemplate an end-of-case award of costs and fees to a prevailing party, presumably the alleged infringer in these targeted cases. Unfortunately, that means that a client is still faced with the risk of having to fund and support a litigation through summary judgment or even trial before it can attempt to recover fees and costs. In contrast, NPEs are in the business of taking and capitalizing on risk, and fee-shifting seems unlikely to change their behavior significantly because the cost of patent litigation as it now stands often forces settlement well short of the courtroom.

In addition, it’s unclear whether legislation, however well-intended, will do anything more than change the tactics of NPEs (or the courts for that matter). For example, the AIA’s requirement that unrelated defendants not be sued in the same suit has done little to stem the tide of NPE litigation or change the practice of the Courts in consolidating cases for at least the purposes of discovery. Yet to be seen is whether the AIA’s new post-grant review (PGR) processes will level the playing field in the enforcement of unworthy patents.

Despite the current maelstrom of events surrounding NPEs, it seems the only reliable advice for clients right now comes from the British (royal babywatchers, I’m sure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would agree): keep calm and carry on.

The IP Section focuses on educational programs and the exchange of information about new or proposed developments in the intellectual property field. This field embraces patent, copyright and trademark matters as well as antitrust, trade secrets and unfair competition issues. The Section holds monthly luncheon meetings on topics in the field, bringing in national speakers.