Tag Archives: Technology

IPCU readers can save $200 on IP Dealmakers Forum Nov 6-8 in NY

Patent monetization is alive and improving.

Look no further than the 5th annual IP Dealmakers Forum, which will attract the top players in IP licensing, sales and litigation funding to the Alexandria Center overlooking NYC’s East River, November 6-8.

IP CloseUp readers can save $200 off of registration by using discount code IPDF18_CIPU.

Panels include:

  • IP Market Roundup: Light at the end of the Tunnel
  • In Patents We Trust: Government Updates & Outlook
  • Leveraging Data to Identify Valuable Patents
  • SEP, FRAND & Getting Ready for 5G
  • IP Investors Roundtable: Opportunities In and Around IP
  • What Matters Now: Navigating the New Deal Landscape
  • Corporate Governance & Activist Investing in IP

One-to-one meeting and networking sessions will be held throughout the conference.

A partial list of speakers includes:

  • Erich Andersen, Corporate VP & Chief IP Counsel, Microsoft
  • John Lindgren, CEO, IPVALUE
  • Todd Dickinson, Former Director, USPTO
  • Fred Fabricant, Head of IP Litigation, Brown Rudnick 
  • Paul Michel (ret.), former Chief Judge of CAFC
  • Hans Sauer, Deputy General Counsel for IP, BIO

For the full IPDF agenda, go here.

To register, go here.

CLE credit is available.

Images source: ipdealmakersforum.com

Rich values for IP services providers defy investor expectations

Prices for companies that support and sell IP services and analytical software remain surprisingly strong, even as patent licensing and sales continue to decline.

Their success appears to be fueled by the very problems facing patents: lower values and lack of certainty.

IP tools providers are the proverbial sellers of picks and shovels; the “miners” take the primary risk. Most are satisfied with the steady cash flow, while their clients make the big bets in R&D and litigation. Uncertainty makes investing even more dangerous and the information premium more valuable.

                                    __________________________________________

For the full IP services deal story, “Defying the monestisation market” in the September IAM magazinego here. In this issue the Intangible Investor explores recent IP service firms transactions and their prices.
                                         ______________________________________

Examples of IP services successes include CPA Global’s 2017 acquisition by private equity firm Leonard Green & Partner’s for 2.4 billion pounds ($3.1B USD). Cinven had acquired the firm in 2012 from Intermediate Capital Group for around £950 million ($1.3 billion), backed
by $555 million of debt financing.

In 2015, CPA Global – with approximately $12 million in revenues and no profit – acquired Innography for an undisclosed amount. An industry-insider told IP CloseUp it was likely between $80 and $90 million, or about seven times revenue. Innography, with a strong reputation, had raised $14 million in venture capital.

AI Driven

Thomson Reuters sold its IP and Science business in 2016 to Onex and Baring and Private Equity Asia for $3.55 billion. The company is now Clarivate Analytics.

Among the newer and more interesting entries in the IP services space is ClearAccessIP, a Palo Alto, CA-based firm “that indexes patents, looks for vulnerabilities in a corporation’s patent strategy, and finds opportunities in a patent collection for further value.”

Founded by Nicole Shanahan, a young patent attorney who served as a researcher for IP scholar Colleen Chien at Santa Clara University College of Law. Professor Chien is a member of the Clear Access IP Advisory Board, along with former AIPLA president Wayne Sobon.

“I am essentially trying to build and democratize a marketplace platform because not all patent holders and sellers can afford the large transaction firms,” she says. “I’m also solving a very old problem and putting docket management in the cloud.”

An extensive interview with Shanahan appears in Software Engineering Daily. The audio can be found here; the written transcript, here.

Ms. Shanahan, it seems fair to inform readers, has been living with Sergey Brin, founder of Google and President of its parent company, Alphabet, Inc., which, historically, has been dubious about strong patents.

New Wave

IP services and software providers, especially those using the latest algorithms, may represent a new wave for beleaguered IP holders and their law firms seeking to manage patent risk. The computing strength and analytics capability they offer may be just what some IP holders and margin-conscious law firms need to compete, or these companies may simply be repackaging the outsourcing mantra for the AI age.

These relationship-driven, technology-focused service providers are likely to grow in value as global patent applications and portfolios increase and uncertainty lingers. An improved outlook for patent licensing will make them even more attractive.

Image source: softwareengineeringdaily.com; clarivate.com; cpaglobal.com 

Can blockchain be a game-changer for millions of IP transactions?

The abundant promise of blockchain has yet to be realized. To many in IP, finance and tech, it is just beginning to come into sight.

The initial application of blockchain’s distributed ledger, bitcoin, has turned out to be more of a speculative sideshow than a legitimate alternative currency. We hear repeatedly that bitcoin is merely the first of many possibilities, and that blockchain should not be judged on the basis of bitcoin.

Fundamental Change?

One of the most intriguing areas of potential for blockchain, or encrypted distributed ledger of data, is transacting IP rights — so-called smart transactions. Smart transactions aim to make more efficient millions of copyright, patent and trademark licenses by providing greater transparency and the removing costly middlemen. It sounds great – but can it really happen or is it merely the alchemists’ fantasy?

In April, Managing Intellectual Property, magazine ran a feature on blockchain, “Blockchain Party,” which can be found here. The special report discusses how blockchain will fundamentally change IP transactions, and haw already started to. The race for blockchain patents is well under way, with U.S. and some European banks, fintech firms and tech companies jockeying for position with the Chinese.

Who use blockchain?

The following infographic from Bitfortune.net, a bitcoin promotion and gaming website, offers 16 industries and areas where distributed ledger adoption is underway. (Sources for the data are offered at the bottom of the graphic. They have not been checked.)

Bitfortune says “many experts believe that blockchain will change our world in the next 20 years as much as the internet has over the past 20.”

[Three useful blockchain articles follow the long infographic below.]

 

More on blockchain:

IP CloseUp: 59% of blockchain patents are owned by developers; BofA and IBM dominate banks and tech players.

DS Avocats: Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Intellectual Property.

WIPO Magazine: Blockchain and IP Law: A Match Made in Crypto Heaven?


Inauspicious Beginnings

Can blockchain shake off its inauspicious beginnings as bitcoin foundation and deliver on its promise?

Many are pulling for it, including me and several banks, fintech businesses and technology players, who are either investing heavily or hedging their bets.

 

Image source: bitfortune.net

“What kind of man owns his own computer?” Ben Franklin knows

Invention is about the future. Looking back at the technology and images that defined us, however, can provide an idea of where we are headed.  

A case in point is the Apple II personal computer. The ad below appeared in the venerable Scientific American magazine in May 1980. It seems almost laughable in its blatant appeal to the ego, although it was on the certainly on track about the PC’s ability to empower individuals and encourage creativity.

Ben Franklin designing the kite that helped to discover electricity (below) is a provocative image. Franklin was the original “scientific” American – statesman, inventor, writer. The Apple II, introduced in 1977, came with 4K of memory, expandable to 48K.  Its CPU speed was rated at 1 MHz. It was the kind of tool that could make genius even better.

Below is the original ad for the Apple II (full text is below the ad for easy reading).

What kind of man owns his own computer?

Rather revolutionary, the whole idea of owning your own computer? Not if you’re a diplomat, printer, scientist, inventor… or a kite designer, too. Today there’s Apple Computer. It’s designed to be a personal computer. To uncomplicate your life. And make you more effective.

It’s a wise man who owns an Apple.

If your time means money, Apple can help you make more of it. In an age of specialists, the most successful specialists stay away from uncreative drudgery. That’s where Apple comes in.

Apple is a real computer, right to the core. So just like big computers, it manages data, crunches numbers, keeps records, processes your information and prints reports. You concentrate on what you do best. And let Apple do the rest. Apple makes that easy with three programming languages— including Pascal—that let you be your own software expert.

Apple, the computer worth not waiting for.

Time waiting for access to your company’s big mainframe is time wasted. What you need in your department on your desk is a computer that answers only to you…

Apple Computer. It’s less expensive than timesharing. More dependable than distributed processing. Far more flexible than centralized EDP. And, at less than $2500 (as shown), downright affordable.

Visit your local computer store.

You can join the personal computer revolution by visiting the Apple dealer in your neighborhood. We’ll give you his name when you call our toll-free number (800) 538-9696. In California, (800) 662-9238. Apple Computer, 10260 Bandley Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014.

________________

A Manly Man

Note the ad’s manly images. (I guess 1980s women didn’t need a computer.) Ben Franklin was never a pinup for machismo, although he was said to be quite the lady’s man… $2,500 in 1980 is equivalent to about $8,000 today – a price almost no individual would be willing to pay for a personal computer. Computers have gotten smarter and smaller; people, not so much.

In 1980:

  • U.S. President Jimmy Carter proclaims a grain embargo against the USSR with the support of the European Commission
  • The Rubik’s Cube makes its international debut at The British Toy and Hobby Fair, Earl’s Court, London
  • The 1980 Winter Olympics took place in Lake Placid, New York
  • The United States boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
  • Pac-Man, the best-selling arcade game of all time, is released in Japan

Another print ad introduced the Apple II in September 1977. It included a $598 board-only version for “do-it-yourself hobbyists.”

And while we are on the subject, Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, available for free, here, is an unusually timely and readable work, especially for anyone interested in invention and the creative process.

Frank Woodworth Pine wrote that it was “the most remarkable of all the remarkable histories of our self-made men.” with Franklin as the greatest exemplar of the “self-made man”.

Image source: http://blog.modernmechanix.com; technobezz.com

Can the U.S. compete with China without a focused innovation policy?

More nations today have an innovation policy than do not – that is except for the U.S. 

The U.S. not only has no centralized innovation and intellectual property policy, it has no real strategy for making IP rights more meaningful and American businesses more competitive in the wake of initiatives from China.

Some believe it is not the job of policymakers to tinker with free-markets or favor certain industries. Well, that may have worked in the past, but with China committed to dominating global innovation – and with unlimited capital – the U.S. must reexamine its strategies.

What it is not supposed to do is assume that it is business as usual.

The United States has a tendency to repeat past mistakes, such as in the case of so-called “Japan, Inc.,” which devastated the auto and electronics industries with more advanced products. It is currently contending with China, which has approximately ten times the population of Japan and has quadrupled its investment in technology over the past decade.

“US innovation policy: Time for a makeover,” a fresh take on dealing with competition in the Intangible Investor, can be found in the July IAM magazine, out this week, here.

Innovation policy in the United States is mostly a series of suggested strategies and directives from several government agencies and industry organisations primarily designed to address foreign IP infringement (i.e., theft). It is often tied to science and economic policy, and is typically reactive – not proactive.

“Better innovation policy not only permits established industries to compete,” says the Intangible Investor, “it facilitates success for the next generation of inventors, authors, designers and software developers. It also helps to supply context for a confused and wary public susceptible to false media narratives – intellectual property is not the enemy, nor are rights holders and lawyers.”

Enforcement is Not Policy

Trump’s anger about China IP violations, justified or not, does not constitute an innovation policy. Innovation policy is not just about enforcement or supporting the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) curriculum for the next generation of inventors. It is about understanding the current economic and political context and responding as a nation.

“The FAANGs, and others, who dominate the competition and monetize their customers’ information, often without permission, realize they are increasingly symbols of bad business behavior,” Bruce Berman wrote recently in IP Watchdog. “The heat they feel from regulators in Europe and the U.S. will continue to rise.

“IP infringement will come to be seen as an increasingly important part of their bad behavior. The timing is perfect for them to step back and step up and show the leadership they heretofore have ignored regarding IP rights. Movement toward a responsible IP middle ground – a less entrenched position that recognizes others’ rights and actively conveys a greater willingness to share successes, not only defend them, will help to inform a meaningful IP policy.”

Quick-Reading Guide

For further background on U.S. innovation policy, read a timely and insightful perspective on U.S. innovation policy from James Goh, a young Wharton student from Singapore, “Primer: Innovation Policy in the United States.” 

For a linked quick-reading list about innovation and IP policy from the Center for IP Understanding, go to page 4.

Image source: q3research.com; breakinggap.com

 

 

$88.3M (CD) for Canadian IP literacy and tools via new strategy

The Canadian government has announced that it is investing $88.3M CD in a new IP strategy that incorporates tools and education, and improves literacy. Canada’s population is approximately one-tenth of that of the U.S.’

The government wants to help business, creators, entrepreneurs, and investors better understand, protect and access intellectual property (IP) through a comprehensive IP Strategy. The full story can be read on IP Watchdog.

Legislation, Literacy, Advice

The IP Strategy will make changes in three key areas: Legislation, Literacy, and Advice, according to a statement and Canada’s IP Strategy website.

The Canadian government announcement said that intellectual property is a key component of an innovation economy. It helps Canadian innovators reach commercial success, further discovery and create middle-class jobs by protecting their ideas and ensuring they reap the full rewards of their inventions and creations.

Canada’s IP Strategy will help Canadian entrepreneurs better understand and protect intellectual property and also provide better access to shared intellectual property. Canada is a leader in research, science, creation, and invention, but has lagged in commercializing innovations.

The new IP strategy received praise from a range of industries, from aerospace to biotech to entertainment.

A suite of seminars, training and information resources on the subject of intellectual property (IP) is tailored for businesses and innovators. As part of the “Literacy and Advice” section of IP Strategy, the Canadian IP Office (CIPO) will:

  • Launch a suite of programs to help improve IP literacy among Canadians.
  • Support domestic and international engagement between Indigenous people and decision makers as well as for research activities and capacity building.
  • Provide tools to support Canadian businesses as they learn about IP and pursue their own IP strategies.

Copyright Awareness

Earlier this year, the UK IP Office (UK IPO) introduced a copyright awareness program with a series of educational animations for students seven to eleven-years-old.  “Nancy and the Meerkats,” under the Cracking Ideas initiative, met with nasty opposition from media like Techdirt and Torrent Freak. They believe that helping children to understand IP right from wrong is a little more than brainwashing. These publications often have an IP axe to grind and believe that content and code should be broadly shared, and that piracy is not necessarily theft.

UK Teaches 7-Year-Olds that Piracy is Stealing” was the title of the Torrent Freak article, implying that it is not. Piracy is not OK, even if some coders, content providers, and patent infringers believe it is. A BBC story attempted to sort things out, but the negative publicity appeared to put the educators on the defensive when it is the infringers who should be. Teaching children IP right from wrong is part of good parenting.

Image source: ic.gc.ca

Rep. Collins speaks from IP experience at CIPU-GIPC innovation policy forum

On Tuesday an open briefing was held in Washington to better understand U.S. innovation and IP policy. Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), a supporter of strong and certain IP rights, launched the event with a personal account of his exposure to IP rights growing up in rural Georgia. 

He said that a number of his relatives and neighbors were chicken farmers, “some of whom invented new and more effective processes to produce and process eggs and poultry that were protected under IP law.”

The keynote comments of the Congressman were part of a program, “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation,” held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU), an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the United Stated Chamber of Commerce.

House Judiciary Committee

Congressman Collins is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and also is on the sub-committee for the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. He was a sponsor of the recently enacted, and broadly supported Music Modernization Act, which passed the House 415-0, and has developed and supported other IP-friendly legislation. “IP is a part of the fabric of the nation,” he said. “American freedom is tied to an effective IP system.”

Other presenters included CIPU board member Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and prior to that at IBM. Mr. Phelps also served as head of Government Relations for IBM in Washington in the 1980s, and previously was head of Asia-Pacific. He spoke about the threat to technology posed by “Japan, Inc.” in the Eighties, and how the U.S. was able to surmount the threat with the right combination of incentives.

“The threat to IP and innovation from China is real,” said Phelps in his introductory remarks, “but too much policy and the wrong incentives can create bigger problems. Making patent certainty a higher priority should be the first priority. Putting IP properly on the balance sheet would help, too.”

Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, also a CIPU director, and president of the Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Education Foundation, was a panelist, as were, Alan Marco, former USPTO Chief Economist, Rob Atkinson, a pro-IP economist and President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Professor Adam Mossoff, an IP scholar and policy expert at George Mason University Scalia School of Law.

Among the goals of the panel was to explore:

  • What is U.S. innovation policy?
  • How does it relate to intellectual property?
  • Who should be responsible for it?
  • How should success be measured?

Audience Response

One the audience members asked if the Supreme Court, with Oil States and several other decisions, was “anti-IP.” The panel did not believe so, but thought that SCOTUS members may be poorly informed about the purpose and use if IP rights.

Another audience member stated the false narratives around phrases like patent “trolls” were part of a long-term “public relations campaign” that has seeded anger and hostility toward IP rights in general. He thought a sustained educational initiative could help to make the role of IP clearer for various audiences.

Image source: GIPC

Reactions to Oil States show that patent due process is not dead

Two days before World IP Day, on April 24, the Supreme Court of the United States relinquished significant judicial authority for patents to the executive branch in Oil States Energy v. Greene’s Energy.   

This decision upheld the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Review Board. The Wall Street Journal stated in a thoughtful and uncharacteristically nuanced commentary, “This process [the inter partes review] was intended to discourage frivolous patent litigation, but is susceptible to political bias.”

Oil States overturns 200 years of judicial precedent and allows the federal government to revoke patents. Dissenting were Justice Gorsuch, President Trump’s appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

” …the purpose of patents, which is to encourage innovation and reward investment, will be undermined if they can be nullified without due process and hearing before an Article III judge,” the WSJ concluded.

The WSJ’s editorial page got it right, even if SCOTUS did not.

Sin of Omission

James Carmichael and Brad Close writing in IP Watchdog, Despite Oil States, IPRs May Still be Unconstitutional,” reminds patent holders that the Court, by its own admission (or should that be “omission”?), ruled on a very narrow area of law and may have left the door open to further decisions that will strengthen patents.

“What was unfortunately never addressed in Oil States, and which the court specifically left the door open for, was that patents rights are still property rights for the purpose of Due Process–the inference being that IPRs may fail under the Due Process or Takings Clause.  Indeed the court seemed to lament that Oil States did not challenge the retroactive application of IPRs and their constitutional sufficiency on a broader basis.”

Carmichael and Close cite the justices tone in their written decision:

We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. We address the constitutionality of inter partes review only… our decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for the purpose of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.

Justice Gorsuch wrote that until recently, most everyone considered an issued patent a personal right—no less than a home or farm—that the federal government could revoke only with the concurrence of independent judges.

Dig In

Oil States did not go well for patent holders, but that was no surprise. What was somewhat unexpected was a strong stance from the US’ leading business periodical, the Wall Street Journal, about the shortsightedness of the Court’s decision, and that the Chief Justice and another member of SCOTUS also were not in favor of constitutionality for PTAB reviews.

Further judicial review of patents and patentability, if not the PTAB and IPRs, is order. If nothing else, Oil States puts a greater burden on USPTO Director Iancu to step-up and de-politicize PTAB administrative procedures and judges.

Despite the obvious loss, Oil States may prove to be the best reason for patent holders to dig in.

Image source: yahoo.com; law.com

59% of blockchain patents are owned by developers; BofA and IBM dominate financial and tech players

More than half of U.S. blockchain patents are owned by blockchain-specific developers, while 20% are owned by financial institutions, led by Bank of America (see pie chart below).

Number three, Fidelity, has about a third as many patents as BofA. Number two, MasterCard, some 50% fewer.

13% are owned by traditional technology businesses, led by IBM, which owns more than three times the next biggest tech holder, Dell.

This is according to the findings of a report prepared by Envision IP, an IP law firm specializing in patent research, as reported in the April Managing Intellectual Property.

According to another report, China claims to have more than twice as many companies than the U.S. in the blockchain top 100 patentees.

Outside of IBM, which supports many banks, leading technology companies like Google, Intel and Microsoft have been slow to pursue blockchain patents. MasterCard, which has 27 blockchain patents, the same number as IBM, is dubious about the reliability of crypto-currencies, such as bitcoin. This 2014 video explains some of the credit card business’ reservations. The firm’s thinking may have evolved.

MasterCard processes over $4 Trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) in more than 38 billion transactions each year, reports The Art of Not Being Governed, a bitcoin blog.  On each of those 38 billion transactions, MasterCard assesses fees to the merchant, accepting the payment. These range from .11% to .80% of the total, plus various fixed amount fees for each transaction. All told, it averages out to about 2% of every transaction.

“Bitcoin, on the other hand, charges little to no fees, and as such, poses a direct threat to MasterCard’s business,” says the blog, which reports that in 2014 someone moved $80 million on the Bitcoin network for a fee of $.04 (4 cents).

For the full Envision IP report, go here.

Image source: Managing Intellectual Property; Envision IP

 

USPTO Director Iancu will keynote 2018 IPBC Global in San Francisco

An impressive group of speakers, sponsors and supporters, led by USPTO Director and Undersecretary of Commerce, Andrei Iancu, will be featured at the 11th global Intellectual Property Business Congress in San Francisco, June 10-12 at the Palace Hotel.

Director Iancu has indicated that he will support the long-awaited move to greater certainty in the U.S. patent system.  In a recent speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he said that “reclaiming our (U.S.) patent leadership is within reach.”

Attendees will be eager to hear about Director Iancu’s strategy for attaining this and other goals.

IPBC Global 2018 plenary’s and panels include:

  • Will the U.S. Continue to Lead in IP?
  • CIPO Scenarios: The Good, Bad and Ugly 

IP CloseUp editor, Bruce Berman (that’s me), will be a member of the patent quality panel:

  • Is patent quality a distraction? – all that really matters is patent eligibility

    -What is a quality patent?
    -Controversy around eligibility
    -The importance of predictability

For the AI panel, participants will include Bart Eppenauer, former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft and William LaFontaine, General Manager, IP, IBM.

  • The World of Artificial Intelligence 

For the IPBC Global 2018 program, go here.

For the full list of speakers and their biographies, go here.

To register, go here.

Image source: ipbc.com; ipwatchdog.com

Family Entertainment: This “Rube” saw the future and its foibles

San Francisco-born Reuben Garrett Lucius “Rube” Goldberg, an American cartoonist, sculptor, author, engineer, and inventor, best known for satirical cartoons that depicted complicated devices that performed simple tasks in creatively complex ways.

But Goldberg, born on July 4, 1883, was also a visionary, who saw the impact of personalized communications decades before it occurred. His Forbes cover,“After Color TV: The Future of Home Entertainment,” from March 15, 1967 (below) depicts a family with each member engaged with its own mostly flat screen and targeted content – including the baby and cat. Recall that in 1967 the idea of the color TV, aka “talking furniture,” was still relatively new.

Future Family: Alone Together

Note the types of content, the different screens and the interactive controller used by the father. The baby’s wind-up truck does not have a chance.

The Fun of Getting There

Goldberg is associated with popular cartoons depicting gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect or complicated but imaginative ways, giving rise to the term “Rube Goldberg machine” for s similar gadget or process. Goldberg received many honors in his lifetime, including a Pulitzer Prize for his political cartooning in 1948.

Goldberg was a founding member and the first president of the National Cartoonists Society, and he is the namesake of the Reuben Award, which the organization awards to the Cartoonist of the Year.

He is the inspiration for various international competitions, known as Rube Goldberg Machine Contests, which challenge participants to make a complicated machine to perform a simple task (kind of the opposite of an invention, which attempts to solve a problem or improve efficiency).

The contest, in which college or high school students build devices to complete a simple task in a minimum of twenty steps in the style of Goldberg, is held throughout the United States, and local winners are eligible to compete in the national contest.

Rube Goldberg reminds us that how a simple problem gets solved can be as fascinating as the solution.

Source: imgur.com

Cong. Collins & Jeffries, and expert panel, will look at innovation policy and IP on May 8 in Washington

WASHINGTON, DC –– What is innovation policy? What does it mean to U.S. competition and jobs? Who is responsible for it?

These are among the questions that will be addressed at an afternoon briefing held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) at the headquarters of the United States Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington on May 8.

The event will feature two leading proponents of IP rights, Congressmen Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), both members of the House Judiciary Committee, Sub-Committee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.

“Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation” is being held by the Center for IP Understanding, an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the Chamber. Persons interested in receiving an invitation please contact CIPU at explore@understandingip.org.

Preceding the Congressmen will be a panel, “What is Innovation Policy? Why is it Necessary?” featuring leading experts on innovation, IP and the economy, including:

 – Manny Schecter – Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, board member of CIPU and the IPO Education Foundation
Alan Marco – former Chief Economist for the USPTO and now Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia Tech
Adam Mossoff – Prof. of Law at George Mason University, Center for the Protection of IP
Robert Atkinson – founder and President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), an independent think tank

Discussion Will Follow

A networking break will follow the panel and a reception will take place at the conclusion of the program.

Go here for information about the “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Policy: Building a Strong Foundation.”

“U.S. innovation policy and IP focus are seriously lacking,” said Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and at IBM, and a CIPU board member. “Other nations take their policies more seriously. The timing is right to dissect what U.S. innovation policy means and how it effects jobs and competition.”

Briefing partners and supporters include the Michaelson 20MM Foundation, the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Berkeley Research Group, the Tusher Center for Intellectual Capital Management at UC Berkeley-Haas and Open Invention Network.

Image source: understandingip.org; nesta.org.uk; theglobalipcenter.com; 

 

%d bloggers like this: