The University of Akron School of Law will host the 2nd Annual Midwinter Patent Experts Conference in Naples, Florida February 10-11, 2014. The conference will be held at the Naples Hilton Hotel.
The faculty for the program includes, from the judiciary, the Hon. Kathleen O’Malley and the Hon. Richard Linn, of the Federal Circuit, as well the Hon. Roger T. Hughes, of the Federal Court of Canada. From the executive branch, the current acting director of the PTO, the Hon. Teresa Stanek Rea, will participate, as will the current Chairman of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, James S. Smith, and former Administrative Patent Judge William F. Smith. Former PTO Deputy Director Sharon Barner and former Commissioner for Patents Robert Stoll will also participate. Robert A. Armitage, the father of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, will also be a featured participant.
A number of law professors who specialize in patent law are also included in the program. They include Dean Timothy Holbrook and Assoc. Professor Timo Minssen, Christal Sheppard, Dennis Crouch, Jason Rantanen, W. Keith Robinson, William Hubbard and Dr. Heinz Goddar. Senior corporate lawyers include Sharon R. Barner, Vice-President of Cummins Inc., and Richard Rainey, in charge of worldwide IP litigation for GE.
I have been invited to participate in a panel debate on “non-obviousness” and to give a speech on “A comparative US/European view on the law of non-obviousness” . My presentation will provide an introductory overview over relevant legal frameworks and various doctrinal concepts of the European and U.S. non-obviousness assessment. I will also discuss recent case-law developments that are of particular practical relevance. Special emphasis will be laid on chemical and biotech case law. I intend to argue that the KSR-induced, more flexible US-approach to obviousness has moved closer to the European approach and that I welcome this development. Yet, I also underline that specific statements in KSR and subsequent case law rightfully attracted criticism in both Europe and the US. Moreover, I plan to point out that by carefully aligning national case law with EPO precedent, recent U.K. decisions have applied a more “patent-friendly” approach with respect to, inter alia, the “obvious to try” issue and selection inventions. These decisions provide valuable insights and arguments to those who fear that KSR inevitably tipped the pendulum towards an overly strict non-obviousness standard, which disregards hindsight problems, the dynamics of the research environment, and the importance of patents in pharmaceutical R&D.