Corporate Counsel Litigation Forum: A peer-to-peer conversation on trends in intellectual property

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Panelists Isabella Fu, Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Kevin Rhodes, VP and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, 3M Corporation Mike Walker, VP, Assistant GC and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, DuPont Moderator Terry Rea, former acting and deputy director of the USPTO, and former acting and deputy under secretary of commerce for intellectual property. Crowell & Moring partner and director with C&M International, Ltd.

The webinar will begin shortly, please stand by. We will send the slides to you after the event.

Panelist: Isabella Fu – Microsoft Corporation

Associate General Counsel

Isabella Fu is Associate General Counsel at Microsoft Corporation, where she is responsible for copyright, trademark, and patent litigation, including matters both inside and outside of the United States.

Prior to joining Microsoft, in 2003, Isabella was Director of Litigation at Intel Corporation, where she managed the worldwide litigation function and handled major antitrust and intellectual property matters before courts and regulatory agencies.

Before going in-house, Isabella practiced at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. She holds a J.D. from Columbia University and an A.B. in Physics from Harvard-Radcliffe College.

2

Panelist: Kevin Rhodes – 3M Corporation Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel

Kevin Rhodes is a Vice President and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of 3M Company, and the President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of 3M Innovative Properties Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he is responsible for managing the global intellectual property assets of 3M Company and its worldwide affiliates. Mr. Rhodes is a member of the Boards of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association and the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association Educational Foundation. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel. Mr. Rhodes is the Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform and he has testified before Congress and administrative agencies, and has spoken widely, on issues of intellectual property law and policy. Prior to joining 3M in 2001, Mr. Rhodes was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, where he specialized in intellectual property litigation. Mr. Rhodes received his J.D., magna cum laude, from Northwestern University. He is a registered patent attorney, with an undergraduate degree from Grinnell College.

3

Panelist: Mike Walker – DuPont Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel

P. Michael Walker is Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel in DuPont Legal. He began his legal career in a law firm in Philadelphia, Pa., in 1986 and joined DuPont in 1990. As Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Mr. Walker manages DuPont’s global patent organization and is responsible for legal policy matters related to DuPont patents and other intellectual property. Mr. Walker received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Drexel University and his J.D. degree from Notre Dame Law School. He is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Walker serves on the Board of Directors of the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation, and is a past president of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel. He is also a member of the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Public Advisory Committee. Mr. Walker also is active in community affairs and is a member of the Board of Overseers of Widener Law School.

4

Moderator: Terry Rea – Crowell & Moring/C&M Intl

Former acting and deputy director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and former acting and deputy under secretary of commerce for intellectual property.

Terry is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Intellectual Property Group and a director with C&M International, Ltd., the international trade and investment consulting firm affiliated with Crowell & Moring. Her practice concentrates on working with clients in several key areas, including IP policies and strategies, patent enforcement and post-grant administrative proceedings, trade secrets policy and enforcement, and digital/Internet related copyright issues. While at the USPTO, Terry led the agency through the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). She was actively involved in writing the regulations implementing the new PTAB post grant proceedings created by the AIA. Managing Intellectual Property recognized Terry as one of the 50 most influential people in intellectual property. Terry has been named among the National Law Journal's 2014 "Intellectual Property Trailblazers & Pioneers," Law360's "2014 Most Influential Women in IP," and the Washington Business Journal's "Legal Champions.”

5

Question #1

How effective are IPRs? How have they changed the litigation landscape?

6

AIA Progress Monthly Filings

7

AIA Petition Technology Breakdown

8

IPR Petitions Terminated to Date

9

Question #2

Are the business models of NPEs and PAEs changing?

10

2014 Patent Litigation Report

Source: Unified Patents 11

2014 Patent Litigation Report

Source: Unified Patents 12

Source: Unified Patents

2014 Patent Litigation Report

13

New Patent Case Filings

14

Patents Issued Each Month by Type

15

Question #3

What is the likelihood of new patent or trade secret legislation?

16

Likely Legislation this

Congress…

17

Question #4

What is the next big thing?

18

Key Takeaways

• The new PTAB proceedings, including IPRs, has changed the litigation landscape and should be evaluated whenever litigation is considered.

• The business models of NPEs and PAEs continue to evolve, and the new PTAB proceedings have had an impact.

• Trade secret legislation is a possibility this Congress.

• Further patent legislation would likely be minimal and only address a few issues.

19

Questions?

20