Give us certaintyPatent law is unnecessarily complex

and the Supreme Court has a crucialrole in clarifying it, Judge Timothy

Dyk of the US Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit told attendees at yesterday'sluncheon.Juries and companies dealing with

patents struggle to understand the currentrules, and the confusion extends to USPTOexaminers, said the judge. As a result, busi-nesses are often forced to litigate to gain clar-ity on ambiguities in the law. “The costs ofsecuring an appropriate answer are extreme-ly high, and while this may be of benefit topatent lawyers it’s not of benefit to patentholders,” said Dyk. Since Congress has just passed the

America Invents Act, Dyk said it is unrealis-tic to expect politicians to solve the problemin the near future. He also admired theSupreme Court’s recent interest in patentlaw—perhaps to the surprise of some atten-dees. Dyk pointed out that, since they are not

patent experts, the Supreme Court Justices’lack of involvement with the patent commu-nity allows them to approach cases with afresh perspective. “We are all grateful—orshould be grateful—that the Supreme Courttakes a continuing interest in patent law,”said Dyk.

Crowdsourcing prior art searchesmay help patent examiners copewith the increase in applications

expected under the America Invents Act,said one Annual Meeting panelist yesterday.Manny Schecter of IBM, speaking at

Track 1: “Patent Prosecution Under theAIA,” said he expected to see a “significant”increase in work for examiners. “Not onlywill there be an increase in the number ofsubmissions, but there will also be anincrease in the amount of prior art submit-ted,” he said. Schecter said he was involved in the Peer-

to-Patent project, which encourages mem-bers of the public to find information rele-vant to examiners assessing the validity ofpatent claims. Peer-to-Patent participationmeasurably improved the quality of submis-

sions, according to Schechter. He said about20% of applications which were part of thePeer-to-Patent program were rejected by theUSPTO in view of material that had beensubmitted, and law students and professorswho take part in the Peer-to-Patent programare often able to incorporate it into theirclasses.Moderator Paul Cole of Lucas & Co. said

submitting prior art is “not necessarily a hos-tile act.” “If someone has got an application where

there’s a lot of prior art, you’re doing him afavor by encouraging him to abandon theapplication early and save some money,” hesaid. For this reasons, he said people should

submit prior art “at the earliest possibletime.”

Courtenay Brinckerhoff of Foley & Lardnerspoke about the need for attorneys to be awareof the rules concerning effective filing datesunder the AIA. The new first-inventor-to-filesystem applies to applications submitted on orafter March 16, 2013. Under some circum-stances, however, the USPTO may considerthe application to have been effectively filed ona different date. “This is where some of thepanic comes in,” said Brinckerhoff. “If you fileone day late you might have prior art that youcan’t get around.”Brinckerhoff outlined strategies for patent

attorneys who want to have their applicationsconsidered under the most favorable rules.These include filing applications with claimsto new subject matter before March 16 andsegregating “old” subject matter and “new”subject matter into different applications.

SATURDAY EDITION

managingip.com

DAILYREPORT

AIPLA ANNUAL MEETING, WASHINGTON DC, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012

PUBLISHED BY

AIPLAJeffrey Lewis looks forward to his year asPresident Interview Page 4

The IP year inreviewPreview Page 5

News 2 , 3 | P re v i ew s 5 , 7 | Vo x Pop 8 | S c hedu l e 8

Elle Woods@KondoleezzaNice

Happy I made thedecision to attend#AIPLAam12 !!! It'smy first time!! Theattendees have beenvery receptive to meas a law student!!!

Mark Horsburgh@HorsburghM

#aiplaAM12 JamesPooley says findingpatent lawharmonization is likesearching forSasquatch.

Caren Lewis@clew625

Congratulations tomy dad, Jeff Lewis,on becomingpresident of AIPLA! Ilove you!#aiplaAM12

Matt Adams@PatentBuff

This non-USpractitioner is sittingin track 1 andappreciating theneed for good UScounsel under AIA#aiplaAM12

Ryan Alley @RyanAlleyDir Kappos- nowentering aninteresting timewhen courts willstart reviewing #AIA.PTO rulemakingunder scrutiny.#AIPLAam12

#aiplaAM12

Submit prior art, improve patent quality

Last night’s Dinner & Entertainment was sponsored by Carter Deluca Farrell & Schmidt, Kenyon & Kenyon and Perkins Coie, andfeatured the country, bluegrass, modern and classic rock sounds of recording artist Shane O’Dazier.

Michael Barrett of CNAInsurance told attendees at yes-terday morning’s Track 3,

“Theft of IP through Cyber Attacks—LegalExposure and Legal Remedies,” that “aslawyers, you have a duty to understand tech-nology.” Noting that the American BarAssociation’s Model Rules indicate thatlawyers should “keep abreast of changes inthe law and its practice, including the bene-fits and risks associated with relevant tech-nology,” Barrett said that it is incumbentupon attorneys and patent agents to under-stand the security risks associated with achanging world. From Twitter, to the cloud,to Facebook (which, according to Barrett, isnow the third largest “nation” in the worldby number of users) and the increasing useby employees of personal laptops and cell

phones for work, there is a lot to keep up on.While legislation is pending in Congress toimprove standards and enforcement oncybersecurity, Associate Deputy AttorneyGeneral of the U.S. Department of Justice

Leonard Bailey said the situation is com-plex, and pointed out that “these days you’refacing a pretty substantial headwind inCongress,” with only 21% of proposed legis-lation becoming law. For that reason, com-

panies must have their own policies andemployee agreements in place. IBM’sAndrew Tannenbaum, who also spoke onthe panel, warned: “With great opportunitycomes great vulnerability.”

12% Technology

59% Healthcare

7% Other

22% Financial institution/bank

2 NEWS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012AIPLA DAILY REPORT

Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC Nestor HousePlayhouse YardLondon EC4V 5EX United KingdomTel: +44 20 7779 8682 Fax: +44 20 7779 8500 Email: mip@managingip.com

EDITORIAL TEAM Editor Eileen McDermott Reporters Emma Barraclougha and Alli Pyrah

PRODUCTIONProduction manager Luca Ercolani Web designer Josh PasanisiPhotography Richard H. Burgess, Great Photos by RHB, www.rhbphotos.com

ADVERTISINGGroup publisher Tom St Denis +1 212 224 3412tstdenis@euromoneyny.com Publisher Alissa Rozen +1 212 224 3673arozen@euromoneyny.com Associate publisher – Europe,Middle East & AfricaAli Jawad +44 20 7779 8682 ajawad@managingip.com Head of AsiaPeter Ollier +852 2842 6944peter.ollier@euromoneyasia.com

North Asia manager Matthew Siu +852 2842 6937matthew.siu@euromoneyasia.comSouth Asia manager Daniel Boland +852 2842 6965daniel.boland@euromoneyasia.com

Divisional director Danny Williams

SUBSCRIPTION HOTLINE UK Tel: +44 20 7779 8999US Tel: +1 212 224 3570

The AIPLA Daily Report is produced byManaging Intellectual Property in associationwith the AIPLA. Printed by Jim Buckley Offsetting& Services in Forestville, Maryland. The AIPLADaily Report is also available online atwww.managingip.com.

© Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC 2012.

No part of this publication may be reproducedwithout prior written permission. Opinionsexpressed in the AIPLA Daily Report do notnecessarily represent those of AIPLA or any of itsmembers.

Get tech-savvy: it’s your duty

Source: CNA claim database 2008 through 2011

Security/privacy breachclaims by industry

The internet has been a game-changer for counterfeiters. That’ssomething every IP lawyer knows.

But few are likely to appreciate just howsophisticated makers of fakes have becomein the way that they use the web. “Early on, they registered domains and it

was easy to catch them online,” anti-coun-terfeiting attorney Stephen M. Gaffigan

(pictured) told attendees at yesterday’sTrack 2: “Trademark Enforcement Aroundthe World and Online.” Now it’s a different world, he said, thanks

to access to high-speed internet in Chinaand the rapid growth in English-languagecapabilities there. Gaffigan added thatChinese counterfeiters can now offer sellersturnkey operations, complete with cata-

logues full of products and a state-of-the-artwebsite. Gaffigan explained how serving online

counterfeiters with writs has traditionallybeen a challenge for lawyers. Now, sympa-thetic judges are increasingly likely to sanc-tion service by email, or even by website. Heexplained that an increasing number ofcounterfeiters who type in their own URLsare finding themselves redirected to a pagefull of legal documents. Now, however, counterfeiters have

responded with online techniques of theirown. “They think, ‘they’ve taken our IP and

we’re getting no repeat business,’” Gaffiganexplained. That’s led them to hack otherbusiness’s websites, finding holes in theirsecurity and hosting their own webpageswithin the legitimate site’s pages—a tech-nique Gaffigan likened to the use of so-calledhuman shields in combat. Usually the website’s owner only realizes

his or her site has been hacked when thewebsite begins to slow down and it slipsdown Google’s search rankings. “These guys are so bold that they hacked

the website of the US District Court for theSouthern District of New York and built afake site on the back of it,” he said. So how can IP owners fight back?

Gaffigan offered a solution: “We’re followingthe money. That’s how we’re going to getthese folks.”

AIPLA DAILY REPORT SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012 NEWS 3

Beat counterfeiters at their own game

Prioritizeyour lifeLife coach and business develop-

ment consultant Ellen Ostrowchallenged attendees at the

Women in IP Law Committee’s BreakfastMeeting yesterday to rate their satisfac-tion with different aspects of their livesand to consider what values they regard asmost important. “People frequently realise that they are

dissatisfied with the parts of their livesthat matter most to them,” she says.“Everything is fundamentally about val-ues. It is easier to market work that isimportant to you and it is easier to man-age competing demands if you know yourpriorities.”

What will be the focus of your presidency?I want to take a good look at our member services and consid-er whether our members are getting everything they need. Ifthey aren’t, I want to talk to them about it. We have three largeconferences per year and there are 2,000-2,500 attorneys there.We have about 14,000 members. That means that a large num-ber of our members don’t make it to the meeting each year.They may have other interactions with AIPLA, such asthrough our website, but they don’t have face time. I know we are all busy and there is a cost associated with

travel, but that means we have to get out to where our mem-bers are. The obvious targets are the communities in which wehave a lot of members—places like Silicon Valley, Seattle, SanDiego, Portland, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Boston, New Yorkand Atlanta. If there is an IP-related event going on or anotherreason to go to a particular city, I’d like to know because I willtry to attend and if I cannot then we will see if another Officeror a member of the Senior Staff at AIPLA can attend. But I alsothink that we need to plan AIPLA events in those cities as well.

What kinds of activities will you host in those cities?I think there will be a mixture of activities. I want to be flexi-ble and receptive to what individual members and regionalbar associations want to do. For example, the AIPLA NewLawyers Committee has been holding happy hours andretreats throughout the country. Last year they had a retreatin Boston and they recently had one in New York. I joinedthem for brunch and it was a great event. The idea is to get members invested. We want to meet our

members one-on-one or in small groups. The more we cansee our members and interact, the more they know whatAIPLA has available to assist them with their practices andprofessional lives and the more we can do so.

What about public outreach; do you think IP’sreputation is getting worse?I think it’s a major problem. The public doesn’t always have acomplete understanding of IP, whether it’s people wanting tolook at a bootlegged copy of a movie, or have generic drugswithout paying for the research, or taking a book withoutproperly compensating the author. I think in some ways, it’spart of a bigger problem that’s not IP-related. The fact is thatIP is a key component of jobs and getting business to grow byinvesting in research and manufacturing—the sooner that isunderstood, the better off the economy will be.

How will you go about improving this perception?My goal is to get information about IP and AIPLA out to asmany people as possible. In the spring, we are going to partic-ipate in World IP Day, which has traditionally been an event

on Capitol Hill focused mostly on elected officials and theUSPTO. One of the things I want to do is get AIPLA morevisible outside of the DC Beltway, and I think World IP Dayis the perfect vehicle for that. So this year at the end of Aprilwe’re for the first time going to have a World IP Day initiativein several cities and then expand it to more cities the follow-ing year. We have developed programming so that our mem-bers have content available to do presentations about IP inlocal schools and civic organizations. We need to get out intothe communities where our members are located and geteducation about the benefits of IP into the schools.

Do you have international locations in mind foroutreach as well?Yes. I think the countries we target are going to be decided bywhich are most important for American IP policy and thosewhere there are learning opportunities. For example, I amgoing to Cuba in December as part of an AIPLA-led delega-tion. You have to get a special visa which requires StateDepartment approval to travel there. But Cuba has a new IPcommissioner and she seems to be fairly receptive. I think itwill be a learning opportunity. The first objective has to be tounderstand each others’ mindset and to try to find somecommonality, particularly on IP issues. Directly from Cuba, I will be going to the ASIPI meeting,

a meeting of South American IP professionals, in Uruguay totry to get a common understanding of some of the mostimportant IP issues that face us internationally, such as thePatent Cooperation Treaty. When you talk about SouthAmerica, you’re talking about many different types ofeconomies and each one comes with a different set of issuesand concerns. I think we are going to have an interestinginternational year with AIPLA.

What aims do you have in terms of internationalharmonization? Would the ultimate goal be tohave one patent system worldwide?Each country has its own view on what patents are and howthey ought to be enforced. Another issue is that we currentlydon’t have a court that could resolve issues for all countries.

But I do think we should start on the easier stuff like the waypeople can file and what constitutes a procedural or time bar topatentability. I think that would start making life a little easierfor the companies and the inventors by making standards moresimilar, and doing so would help our members and interna-tional economics. The America Invents Act (AIA) has movedus closer to international harmonization, so on the patent sideI think we are going to be looking at a few years where we tryto move towards an even more harmonized system.

Your predecessor made monitoring AIA imple-mentation one of his top priorities—are you satis-fied with the way the final rules on post grantproceedings in the AIA panned out?I am quite excited to see what people are going to say about theimpact of the new AIA rules. That’s going to be a major focusof the next few years of practice. In writing the post grant rules,the USPTO had to balance the interests of some who wantedthe processes to be streamlined and others who wanted tomake them quite detailed. Some wanted them to be limitedand others wanted quite a large estoppel effect. They madethese procedures fairly complex, so I am afraid that there mightbe fewer people using them than there might have been hadthey made them more streamlined but only time will tell. Personally, I was hoping to have a system that reduced

costs. It will be interesting to see whether the system theyhave decided on will do that.

How can members keep track of AIPLA’s involve-ment in issues like this?We have a huge bank of information available on our website.At the moment, we’re looking at how we can reorganize thatwebsite to make the information more available and the web-site easier to navigate. For instance, AIPLA is widely known for its educational con-

tent. Every year we have three large meetings where CLE is pre-sented, but we also have CLE content from smaller “roadshows” that occur around the country and in addition to webi-nars online. The material from these events is fantastic, compre-hensive and a great research tool. In other words, if there’s aproblem or issue facing a member, then odds are very high thatthe answer or at least the starting point for an answer is on ourwebsite. We are working hard to make it more accessible. The AIPLA website also contains lots of content on what is

happening on IP-related legislation, our Amicus filings in thecourts and summaries of key IP decisions, schedules forupcoming events and lots more. Each Association committee,and there are over 50 of those, has a website that discussesinformation specific to the committee’s area of interest and haslots of specific opportunities for members to become involved.

Incoming president Jeffrey Lewis spoke with Alli Pyrah about his plans for membership outreach and how he hopesto educate the public on IP issues

Looking inward, reaching outward

Look for Lewis’ blogposts from the Presidents’desk, which will be pub-lished by AIPLA andManaging IP. Lewis willkeep members apprisedof his travels and delivertimely updates on keyissues to AIPLA.

4 INTERVIEW: JEFFREY LEWIS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012AIPLA DAILY REPORT

13th Fl., 27 Sec. 3, Chung San N. Rd., Taipei 104, Taiwan, R.O.C.Tel: 886-2-25856688 Fax: 886-2-25989900/25978989Email: email@deepnfar.com.tw www.deepnfar.com.tw

ProsecutionInfringementLitigationIP

Today’s Closing Plenary will feature a roundup of themost important cases and decisions in patents, trade-mark, copyright and trade secrets law, as well as ethics

and privacy matters. Panelists will review what happened, anddiscuss how they expect the law to develop in the future.

Conflict with the First AmendmentSteve Wadyka of Greenberg Traurig, who is leading the sec-tion on trademarks, says many of the cases he will be dis-cussing concern the interplay between trademark law and theFirst Amendment.Among the matters he plans to cover are Louis Vuitton v.

Warner Bros. and University of Alabama v. New Life Art. Bothcases were decided in favor of defendants who made freespeech arguments.In Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros., the luxury designer filed a

trademark infringement suit against the motion picture studioover a counterfeit handbag featured in “The Hangover Part II.”The French brand alleged that viewers would be mislead intobelieving that the knockoff Diophy bag, referred to by one ofthe characters in the film as a “Lewis Vuitton”, is genuine.But the Southern District of New York dismissed the suit

in June, concluding that the public is not likely to believe thebag is authentic “just because a fictional character made thisclaim in the context of a fictional movie.”In University of Alabama v. New Life Art, the university

filed a lawsuit against artist Daniel Moore, who is known forhis paintings of University of Alabama football players. Theclaim sought to prevent Moore from selling posters, calen-dars and mugs featuring his work without first obtaining alicense from the university.In November 2009, a United States District Court in

Birmingham ruled that Moore could continue to produce thepaintings and prints, but prohibited him from selling his imageson the more commercial items without obtaining a license.But in June this year, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit sided with Moore, concluding that “First Amendmentinterests in artistic expression so clearly outweigh whateverconsumer confusion that might exist” that the paintings,prints and calendars did not violate the Lanham Act.“These were both interesting cases on the limitations of

trademark law when the accused considered the work as aform of speech,” says Wadyka. “In each case, the courtapplied a test set out in Rogers v. Grimaldi, involving thedancer Ginger Rogers.”The two-part test requires that a reference to a trade-

marked product is “artistically relevant” to the work and not“explicitly misleading” as to its source.

Aesthetic functionality and color marksWadyka will also talk about theChristian Louboutin v. Yves SaintLaurent decision, which providedclarification to trademark lawyersabout the limitations of single colormarks and the controversial aestheticfunctionality doctrine. Louboutinfiled trademark infringement, dilu-

tion and unfair competition claims over a monochromatic redshoe produced by YSL which allegedly infringed the Frenchshoe maker’s trademark on a red, lacquered outsole. In August 2011, Judge Victor Marrero invalidated

Louboutin’s mark on the basis that “a monopoly on the colorred would impermissibly hinder competition among otherparticipants.”In September this year, the Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit reinstated the mark as “a distinctive symbol which hadacquired secondary meaning.” However, the court confinedLouboutin’s mark to a red sole with a contrasting upper, andruled that YSL’s monochromatic shoe did not infringe it.

“This highlights a trend where owners of famous marks havefailed to establish ownership of their mark even after Congresschanged the law to try to help them,” says Wadyka. In September 2006, Congress relaxed the standard for

trademark dilution, making it easier for owners of famousmarks to pursue dilution claims by replacing the requirementof “actual dilution” with the “likelihood of dilution.”

Judicial dissent on inequitable conduct Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, who is leading the sec-tion on patents, will cover cases including Therasense v.Becton, Dickinson. The case offers much-needed guidance oninequitable conduct, in which a patent applicant is accused ofdeceiving the USPTO by failing to disclose prior art or othermaterial information.In a split decision in May 2011, the Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit attempted to reconcile the patchwork ofrulings on inequitable conduct, which it said “plagued notonly the courts but also the entire patent system.” The court tightened the standard, limiting inequitable

conduct to instances in which the patent office would nothave granted the claim if it had known about the informationthat was withheld.Warren Woessner of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner,

who is discussing ethics in the context of IP law, believes thecase highlights a trend towards limiting inequitable conductclaims.“The legal ecosystem that is emerging post-Therasense is

much less hospitable to the inequitable conduct defense, par-ticularly in cases where multiple actors may have miscommu-nicated or misunderstood information, even if the informa-tion was later established to be highly material to thepatentability of the claims in suit.”The case follows a series of rulings by district courts con-

cerning inequitable conduct, such as Calcar v. Honda, Cordisv. Boston Scientific and 1st Media v. Electronic Arts.

In these cases, the appeals court overturned the districtcourts’ rulings that inequitable conduct had occurred, findingthat although the undisclosed publications were material, aspecific intent to deceive the patent office had not been ade-quately established.“Generally, the panels have applied the tightened stan-

dards for finding both intent and materiality that must be metin order to render a patent unenforceable due to inequitableconduct,” says Woessner.

Divided infringement gets easier toestablishDivided infringement, in which multiple parties performindividual steps relating to infringement, has also been a hottopic amongst patent attorneys this year. Lemley will discussSeptember’s joint ruling in Akamai v. Limelight and McKessonv. Epic, in which the court changed the standard in favor ofpatent holders. In doing so, it overruled its own precedent in BMC

Resources v. Paymentech, which concluded that “in order for aparty to be liable for induced infringement, some other singleentity must be liable for direct infringement.”The decision will make it much easier for patent holders

to enforce method claims involving several infringers, whichare becoming increasingly common in e-commerce, cloudcomputing and personalized medicine patents. For example, personalized medicine and diagnostic

method patents frequently involve doctors performing onestep and laboratories another. Prior to the Akamai ruling, itwould have been impossible to demonstrate infringement inthese cases unless one organization performed all the steps,or controlled or directed the other parties to perform them.Lemley will also touch upon the Apple v. Samsung case and

the smartphone wars generally. Other panelists will review the most influential cases con-

cerning copyright and trade secrets, ethics and privacy issues.

The hottest IP cases of the year

Zach Galifianakissports a knock-offLouis Vuitton bagin The HangoverPart II

The most significant IP cases of the past year will be reviewed during this morning’s Closing Plenary session. AlliPyrah analyzes some of the key trends

Patent law• Inequitable conduct limited in

Therasense to instances in whichthe patent office would not havegranted the claim if it had knownabout the information that waswithheld.

• Method claims involving severalinfringers performing multiplesteps much easier for patent own-ers to pursue following Akamai.

Trademark law• First Amendment defense is likely to take priority over trademark

infringement claims when the reference is “artistically relevant” to thework and not “explicitly misleading” as to its source.

• Famous mark owners are still finding it difficult to meet trademarkdilution standard, despite Congress relaxing the requirements in2006.

• Louboutin v. YSL affirmed that single colors can be eligible for trade-mark protection in fashion in limited circumstances, but brand ownersshould limit their claims to avoid potential invalidation on functionalitygrounds.

Key trends in patent and trademark law

AIPLA DAILY REPORT SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012 PREVIEW: CLOSING PLENARY 5

On Monday, the U.S. SupremeCourt will hear arguments inSupap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &

Sons, a case that addresses whether copy-righted goods manufactured and purchasedabroad are subject to the first sale doctrine. The Court tackled the same issue in late

2010, when it considered Costco v. Omega.That case involved a copyrighted globedesign on Omega watches manufactured inSwitzerland and then sold to a distributor inParaguay. The distributors then sold them toan American supplier, who sold the watchesto Costco, a US discount store. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed a decision in favor of Costco in2008, and in December 2010 the SupremeCourt delivered a 4-4 ruling, leaving manyopen questions. In the Kirtsaeng case, Supap Kirtsaeng

arranged for his family in Thailand to buy

cheaper editions of textbooks printed thereby Wiley & Sons. They then shipped them tohim in the U.S., where he resold them for aprofit on websites such as eBay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit held that the so-called first sale doc-

trine—which says that once a copyrightowner sells a work, his rights in that work areexhausted—does not apply to copies manu-factured outside of the United States, therebymaking Kirtsaeng liable for copyright infringe-ment. Kirtsaeng appealed to the Supreme

Court, asking it to consider these questions: Can such a foreign-made product never be

resold within the United States without thecopyright owner’s permission, as the SecondCircuit held in this case? Can such a foreign-made product sometimes be resold within theUnited States without permission, but onlyafter the owner approves an earlier sale in thiscountry, as the Ninth Circuit held in Costco?Or can such a product always be resold withoutpermission within the United States, so long asthe copyright owner authorized the first saleabroad, as the Third Circuit has indicated? AIPLA has filed an amicus brief in sup-

port of John Wiley & Sons. The Associationargues that the first sale defense may not beraised, not because the books were madeabroad, but because under the extraterritori-ality doctrine the first sale right attaches onlyafter the copyright owner has made its firstsale in the United States.

AIPLA DAILY REPORT SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012 PREVIEW: SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT 7

High Court to hear copyright first sale case

8:00–9:30 am Continental Breakfast Exhibit Hall A Exhibition Level8:00 am–12:00 pm Registration, Exhibits, Cyber Café, Technology Center, CLE Information and Membership Service Center Exhibit Hall A Exhibition LevelCommittee meetings7:30–9:00 am WIPO Advisory Group Breakfast Meeting (Advisory Group Members Only) Virginia A, Lobby Level 9:00–11:00 am International Committee Leadership Group Meeting (Leadership Group Members Only) McKinley, Mezzanine LevelClosing Plenary Session9:00 am–12:00 pm Year in Review Marriott Ballroom Salon 2 & 3, Lobby LevelNetworking Luncheon (tickets required) Virginia BC, Lobby Level12:00–2:00 pm Board of Directors Meeting Delaware AB, Lobby Level12:00–3:00 pm

TODAY’S SCHEDULE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27 2012

Rudy Hofmann, Dicke,Billig & Czaja,Minneapolis, U.S. WhatI’d most like to seechange is what Judge

Dyk spoke about in his luncheonkeynote, which was the SupremeCourt’s treatment of patents.Patents are a very expensiveproposition for companies. I’d liketo see some of the ambiguitiesresolved. What we need is clarityfrom the Supreme Court.

Miriam Levin, USPTO,Alexandria, U.S. I hopeto see understanding ofIP improve international-ly in emerging markets,

and among the public in general. I’dlike to see a better understandingof the value of IP and its role in oursociety and global economy.

Jim Kelley, Eli Lily &Company, Indianapolis,U.S. All of the uncer-tainty in a number ofdifferent areas of patent

law right now complicates plan-ning, raises costs and makes peo-ple reluctant to enter into licensingdeals because of the risk.

Rícardo Sanchez Gíl,Gonzalez Rossi &Asociados, Mexico City,Mexico The governmentin Mexico needs to do

more to improve litigation reme-dies and enforcement. We have noproblem obtaining protection forIP, but when you want to enforcerights you first need to go to theMexican Patent Office and then tocourt. It can take six to eight yearsto get a favorable decision.

Theresa Corneau,Borden Ladner Gervais,Ottawa, Canada Canadais not part of the inter-national classification

system for trademarks or theMadrid Protocol, and we’ve beenstudying the advantages and dis-advantages of subscribing, butthere is no clear direction. Our sys-tem is beneficial to clients becauseit is less expensive, but administra-tively it’s not as effective.

Lily Niu, Stites &Harbison, Alexandria,U.S. The AIA is very con-fusing for my clients,many of whom are for-

eign. I'd like to see some changes tothat, particularly clarifying practicaldetails, such as the format in whichthey need to file patents.

Lynn Tyler, Barnes &Thornburg, Indianapolis,U.S. I’d like to see moredeference by the FederalCircuit on claim con-

struction, and more certainty on theprinciples of claim construction.That’s the number one issue con-tributing to expense for clients.Until you get to the Federal Circuit,you don’t know what you have.

Matt Adams, MSc(Comp Sci), Wellington,New Zealand I’d like tosee greater harmoniza-tion. The America

Invents Act is a good thing from myperspective because more harmo-nization makes life easier for us andour clients. I’d also like to see morerecognition of and harmonizationon traditional knowledge.

VOX POPWhat change would you most like tosee made in IP?