The original patent bargain, which was between an inventor and society, gave inventors a limited monopoly in exchange for disclosing inventions that promote the progress of science and useful arts. While this bargain spurred groundbreaking innovation for hundreds of years, today many question whether the pact is unraveling because of limits on injunctions, litigation cost shifting, post grant IPR and PTAB challenges, and a debilitating lack of clarity about what is even eligible for patent protection. Looking ahead, there are even more difficult issues on the horizon, such as how the original bargain applies when a human creates AI technology that then creates its own inventions. Our panel of creators and protectors of intellectual output will discuss and debate the best way to secure the future of the bargain.

In an uncertain patent environment, trade secret protection is gaining momentum. It’s confidential, unlimited in time, low cost, and immediately effective. However, the recent lawsuit between Waymo and Uber and the growing litigation in the domestic energy industry highlighted some drawbacks. Specifically, that the level of protection granted to trade secrets can be weak as compared to patents, that other companies may be able to reverse engineer the secret, and that there is a growing risk of employees changing jobs and taking trade secret knowledge with them. This experienced panel will discuss the analysis that must be undertaken, and the strategic choices companies must make, to best protect their intellectual output.

With the current uncertainty in the US around patent eligibility and other controversial issues, many are looking to Congress for a legislative solution. This session brings government and industry together to discuss proposals for creating more certainty in the system, and thoughts on how to pass meaningful patent legislation in the current political environment.

According to a recent study by the Yale School of Management, only ten percent of US patent holders are women, even though women in the US earn half of the doctoral degrees in science and engineering and more than half of new PhD’s. The study also concluded that the patent disparity between men and women dips when a woman has a “rare name,” such that gender is not easily discernible. Other studies, including a 2019 USPTO study, cited progress, but ultimately acknowledged that there is still much work to be done. Our esteemed group of speakers will discuss ways to level the playing field to spur more innovation, and stronger economic growth globally.

Patents are undeniably valuable, but they are also expensive. With limited budgets, what are the best strategies for getting the most bang for the buck? How does the strategy change as a company grows? What tools, such as data analytics and AI, can be used to make more informed, more strategic and more cost-effective decisions? And when does it make sense to sell (or buy) patents? This panel brings business and legal teams together to discuss the best ways to balance innovation management and cost management in an increasingly competitive environment.

Published on January 7, 2019, the new subject matter eligibility guidance was the first step taken by PTO Director Andrei Iancu to increase clarity and consistency in how Section 101 is applied. The broad consensus is that the initial changes were positive, as evidenced by the response of the U.S. Chamber International IP Index (which moved the US back into a tie for 2nd place from being tied at 12th place in 2018). But there is still much work to be done. A diverse group of panelists will discuss the impact of the guidance, court rulings interpreting the guidance, whether the goal of clarity and consistency has ultimately been met, and, if not, what more needs to be done.

While there are numerous legal and business issues associated with the emergence of IoT-enabled technology, the issues around interoperability and data security loom particularly large. Join a diverse panel as they discuss standards organizations, SEPs, FRAND licensing, litigation concerns caused by the convergence of technologies, legislative proposals, data security, and other issues that must be addressed before IoT can realize its full potential in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Join your colleagues for a review of the most noteworthy patent and trade secret cases of the past year!

A trademark identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. But will this source identifying function still be relevant in a world where AI can remove humans from much of the product selection and purchasing process? When making everyday purchases for us, will Alexa, Google Assistant, or Cortana look to identify specific brands? Or will they just look to accurately and efficiently match its owners’ needs with any products that fulfill those needs? This future state could essentially limit the effectiveness of the brand as an identifier, and would require us to rethink many of the classic principles of trademark law (for example, likelihood of “consumer” confusion). Some principles would simply no longer apply, while others would have to be reinterpreted to reflect the new paradigm. We will explore this issue in depth, as we look to understand the changes that will be necessary to prepare for the near future.

Warren Buffet once said: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” Applying this truism to data security, and the profound damage that a data breach could have on a brand’s reputation, leaves many asking what we should be doing differently. The answer is, quite a bit actually. Our data security experts will address issues from the most basic policies and controls to the more complex strategic cyber security postures. They will also provide roadmaps for creating and maintaining sound data security practices for small companies, large companies, governments, and law firms of all sizes.

In the past, instances of infringement or unfair competition would almost always result in the sending of a quintessential, strongly worded, cease and desist letter. In the age of social media, however, when your C&D can be posted and heavily criticized on multiple social media platforms, many companies and their lawyers have opted to take a different approach. Perhaps a toned-down version of a classic C&D is a good fit. Or maybe a touch of humor would work best. Velcro famously opted to have singing lawyers verbally deliver a C&D, while Anheuser-Busch hired an actor dressed as a town crier to read a C&D aloud (both of which generated positive press). In some cases, a simple phone call is best. There is also the option of taking no action at all in cases that involve a minor or sporadic unauthorized use of a mark. Don’t miss this opportunity to engage with your peers and learn how to master this new form of art!

Join your colleagues for a review of the most noteworthy trademark and unfair competition cases of the past year!

AI training, which is a fundamental part of any AI project, has been in the news of late. For example, a Google AI was trained to speak more like a human by being fed human-created novels. A Sony/Flow Machines AI was trained to create music by being fed human-created songs. And an IBM AI was trained to recognize faces by being fed human-created photographs taken from Flickr. Even assuming that AI tools need to be trained this way for now (until it can emulate the more top down reasoning that more closely resembles the way that humans approach problems), there are still questions about what is, and what is not, fair. Should companies that use copyrighted material to train AI be required to ask permission first, and/or to compensate the underlying creators? Or is the AI training activity a fair use? If it’s not fair use, how do parties that want to “consume” creative works in this fashion go about seeking consent from hundreds or even millions of creators? What about larger societal issues? Some have called for changes in law and policy to promote social equity in the AI age, such as universal basic income and “robot taxes.” These are all questions that still need to be answered. Don’t miss this fascinating discussion about copyright’s place in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Augmented Reality (AR) is often confused with Virtual Reality (VR), but they truly are distinct. While VR fully immerses users in a virtual world, AR puts digital elements into a user’s real world. As between the two, many believe that AR is likely to have more real-life applications, in large part because AR can be deployed on smartphones or tablets and used in the “real” world. As with most new technologies, however, IP issues will loom large. Is the originality requirement met when a work is created within an AR platform? If so, is it the programmer or the end user who owns the copyright? How would infringements ever be identified if the works are stored in the AR equipment software? This panel will explore the potential applications of this exciting technology, and discuss whether the existing IP framework is flexible enough to accommodate the future of AR.

While this is not the first time that IP practitioners and judges had to wrestle with the concept of authorship, the AI use case is likely to present the most difficult challenge yet. Can AI generated works be protected by copyright? If so, who is the author? The majority of experts today take the position that only humans can be authors under copyright law, and would consider a work authorless or in public domain if there was insufficient involvement of a human creator. Several questions remain, however. First, as a community of creators and protectors, how can we help define when a human has contributed enough (either as a programmer or a user) to be an author of a work. Second, are there, and should there be, other ways to protect such innovations, such as sui generis or considering AI generated outputs as “works made for hire” by an “employed” AI. Third, would any of the above change if, in the future, a truly self-aware, autonomous AI submitted a copyright work for registration? Our experts will examine all of these questions and more.

Join your colleagues for a review of the most noteworthy copyright cases of the past year!

Machine learning and AI are being used more often on the front lines of the cybersecurity battle. They can, among other things, help identify threats more efficiently, and also significantly improve response times. But the “bad guys” also benefit from machine learning and AI. For example, machine learning can produce attack scripts at a speed and level of complexity that humans can’t match. AI can also help hackers avoid security detection, for example by using AI to speed up malware, causing it to constantly change its code, and therefore allowing them to bypass many security controls. This expert panel will explore the best, and the worst, cybersecurity use cases for ML and AI, and discuss the preventative measures that can be taken to avoid giving the hackers the upper hand in the data security wars.

There is a titanic battle taking shape between system defenders and hackers. And some industry veterans are fearful that system defenders are jumping on board the AI/ML bandwagon without paying enough attention to risks, such as relying on a single master algorithm or using algorithms with “explainability” issues that make it hard to assess what’s driving anomalies. Others worry more about the tendency to go it alone. According to Jason Matheny, Director of Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the advantage boils down to which side has the most training data, and that the arms race could be won by the “good guys” if we worked together. For example, if the large technology companies pooled all the data it had on cyberattacks, would we have solved the problem because that data set would be greater than that of any attacker? Or is the solution something else entirely? Join us as we explore areas of consensus, and ways to work more closely together to counter the threat of malicious cyber attacks in the future.

Data security experts are extremely concerned about both current threats and future trends. Whether it’s the aggressive move of data to the cloud (often without adequate planning and/or adequate funding), the unwillingness of some companies to leverage the lessons learned by others, the use of new tools such as collaboration apps that can increase exposure, or the constant stream of new attack vectors used by criminals such as formjacking and powershell attacks, corporate victims often feel like they are playing the classic the carnival game “Whack-a-Mole.” Our expert panelists will discuss the current threats and trends, and what the good guys should be doing to protect themselves, their businesses, and their customers.

Protecting data in an Internet of Things environment will be extremely difficult. The essence of IoT is about making connections, and using those “connected” things to gather information, send information, or both. But all of this data collection and sharing creates new opportunities for information to be compromised. An example being, a Deloitte article raised a question about a garage door opener that could also deactivate a home alarm upon entry, such that the entire alarm system could potentially be deactivated when only the garage door opener is compromised. Equally as troubling, in 2017, the US FDA issued a statement warning that certain implantable cardiac devices, which connected wirelessly to the internet, could potentially be accessed by malicious hackers. Connection is the whole point of IoT, but we need to make sure the connections do not allow malicious actors to gain entry into IoT ecosystems, access customer information, or penetrate manufacturers’ back-end systems to launch malicious attacks. Our experts will discuss in detail what needs to be done to build the IoT infrastructure safely, so as to protect the integrity of IoT innovations and ecosystems.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was enacted in June 2018, and takes effect in January 2020. The Act requires companies doing business in California to improve transparency in how they collect, use and share data. The law is not a copy of the EU’s GDPR legislation, but there are similarities (particularly in the way they both define “personal information” and information “processing”). Privacy laws are also starting to appear around the US, with Vermont, New Jersey, Washington State and others considering legislation. And, while Congress has not actually proposed federal privacy legislation, those reading the tea leaves are starting to whisper that it’s only a matter of time. While there are strong views on both sides of this debate (and already a battle brewing over whether the CCPA would be preempted by a federal law), a recent committee hearing on this topic seemed to suggest that there is at least an acknowledgement by many that technology has outpaced the law, and that one federal privacy law could potentially be better than the collection of 50 different state laws. Join our panel, and help identify the best path forward, as we look to create the American approach to data privacy.

The focus on privacy issues is a growing global phenomenon. China, for example, introduced an information security specification in May of 2018 (and updated it in February 2019), which borrows quite a bit from the GDPR in terms of substance. It’s a nonbinding National Standard, but some have noted that authorities are referring to it when enforcing more generally worded provisions found in mandatory Chinese laws. In India, the Supreme Court in 2017 affirmed that privacy is a fundamental right, based on the rights of life and liberty in the Constitution. And in 2018, India introduced a draft data protection bill that borrows heavily from a number of the concepts in the GDPR. Under the Consumer Data Right (CDR) in Australia, citizens will be able to “own” their personal data through more open access to banking information, energy details, phone and internet business. They will also have more control regarding the use of their data and who can access it. However, for companies that do business globally, one of the most concerning issues is not about how to comply with these new laws in isolation, but rather how to manage the complexity of this patchwork of global privacy standards. Join a spirited debate, led by professionals from the US and abroad, about the various approaches to privacy around the world, and best practices for managing global privacy obligations properly and efficiently.

Join your colleagues for a review of the most noteworthy data security and privacy cases of the past year!