Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
That Congress is mulling over another intellectual property bill should come as no surprise. That the legislation is controversial will certainly not shock anybody. What’s different this summer is that, after several years of tumult over copyright law, the big bill of 2005 (at least so far) is the Patent Reform Act. Stakeholders in the U.S. patent system have been calling for changes, albeit not always the same changes, for some time now. The Federal Trade Commission and the National Academy of Sciences have weighed in with comprehensive reports. The key bill has been introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that handles IP issues. And now members of the bar are speaking up. In “Here We Go Again,” IP litigators Thomas Holt Jr. and Tara Clancy suggest that if one goal of the Patent Reform Act is to reduce the costs of patent litigation, the drafters may want to rethink some provisions. Besides the proposed legislative changes, another answer to the high cost of patent litigation is to place your case on the “rocket docket” at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Not everybody gets the ITC’s attention. Its Section 337 authority only addresses infringing imports. Nonetheless, a full panoply of global infringement disputes reach the ITC, as V. James Adduci II and William Sjoberg describe in “Everybody Comes to the ITC.” Another burden of patent litigation is deciding what to tell the board of directors about the corporation’s IP risks, and how to tell them. Robert Sterne, Trevor Chaplick, David Berger, and David Cornwell consider counsel’s balancing act�between giving the board too little information to make reasonable judgments and revealing too much information in ways that waive key privileges. Also in this month’s issue of Legal Times’ IP, we hear from a former patent and trademark commissioner on the new and unimproved global reach of patent law, from legal experts keeping a close eye on the latest developments in India’s IP regime, and from two lawyers who juggle copyright and trademark concerns for reality TV. � Elizabeth Engdahl Managing Editor

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.