Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
One of the pleasures of reporting on intellectual property is the chance to see the world. Fascinating as our domestic IP disputes are, the desire to translate ideas and their protection across international boundaries raises its equally intriguing dilemmas. In this issue of Legal Times’ IP, we take a look at Japan. Attorneys William Mandir and John Rabena describe a series of American-style mock trials they conducted late last year for a very interested audience of Japanese IP managers (” Welcome to Our World“). The executives wanted to learn how they can litigate their rights more successfully in the United States. Obviously they were taking good notes because they weren’t delighted by depositions. On the other hand, America’s system of technology transfer has apparently aroused envy in Japan. J. Steven Rutt and Stephen Maebius describe Japanese efforts to recreate the success of the Bayh-Dole Act (” Moving Ideas to Market“). And John Johnson and Naomi Abe Voegtli provide some insight into the astonishing run of success that Japanese inventors seeking better compensation are having in their home courts (” Whose Idea Is It Anyway?“). Closer to home, practitioners look at two key Federal Circuit cases�one pending, one decided. This past January, the court upheld the presumption of market power based solely on IP rights (” Independent Ink Stain“). As Peter Boyle and Saadeh Al-Jurf explain, the Federal Circuit acted with clearly telegraphed reluctance in light of outdated Supreme Court precedent. So what happens next? In a dispute that (as of this writing) still awaits a Federal Circuit decision, the court should provide guidance on when a dictionary can be used to interpret a patent. Very often, the weight given lexicons can determine the outcome of litigation worth millions of dollars. Which is, no doubt, why dozens of amicus briefs were submitted and why hundreds of people lined up to attend the oral argument. Attorney Aslan Baghdadi reports on what the judges said and what they seemed to be thinking (” Meaning What?“). � Elizabeth Engdahl Managing Editor

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.