Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR)

The Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR) is a conference designed to provide intellectual property practitioners, jurists, legal academics and law students with a review of IP cases from the U.S. Supreme Court's previous Term, a preview of cases on the docket for the upcoming Term, and a discussion of cert. petitions to watch.


SCIPR 2021

When:

Friday, September 10, 2021 &
Friday, October 1, 2021
 

Where:

Online

 
Cost:

Free

 
Registration:
Sept. 10 Patent Session: Register Here
Oct. 1 Copyright Session: Register Here
 

Friday, September 10, 2021

12:00 - 2:00 pm

This session will analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Arthrex Inc. and Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. In US v. Arthrex, the Court issued a fractured decision, holding: (1) in a 5-4 decition, that the unreviewable authority of administrative patent judges in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated the Appointments Clause; and (2) in a 7-2 decision, that, to fix the violation, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has the discretion to review the decisions of the administrative patent judges. In Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., the Court held that the well-grounded patent law doctrine of assignor estoppel applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations the assignor made in assigning the patent. The speakers will dissect these decisions and offer their critiques. The panel will also preview cert petitions to watch in patent cases. 

Review of US v. Arthrex Inc.
  • Prof. Melissa Wasserman, The Univ. of Texas at Austin School of Law
  • Prof. Harold Krent, Chicago-Kent College of Law
  • Anthony Cho, Carlson, Gaskey & Olds P.C.
Minerva v. Hologic
  • Prof. Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School
  • Caroline Wong, Sidley Austin LLP 
  • Luke McCloud, Williams & Connolly LLP

 

Friday, October 1, 2021

12:00 - 2:00 pm

This session will analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. and will preview the upcoming case Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP. In Google v. Oracle, the Supreme Court held, in a 6-2 decision, that Google’s copying of the Java SE Application Programming Interface for use in Google’s Android program was a transformative fair use under copyright law. In Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP, the Court will decide the following question: “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in breaking with its own prior precedent and the findings of other circuits and the Copyright Office in holding that 17 U.S.C. § 411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration.” The speakers will dissect the Google v. Oracle decision and offer their critiques. A speaker will preview the issue raised in Unicolors.

Review of Google v. Oracle and Preview of Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP

Google v. Oracle
Committed speakers include: 

  • Thomas Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell, P.C. 
  • Prof. Peter Menell, UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Prof. Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Prof. Rebecca Tushnet, Harvard Law School

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP
Committed speakers include:

  • Scott Burroughs, Doniger Burroughs
  • Elizabeth Brannen, Stris & Maher