College of Law > About > Centers & Institutes > Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology > Programs > Past Events

Past Events

For over 25 years, the CIPLIT has run a myriad of programs covering a wide array of topics related to intellectual property and information technology. Influential IP/IT figures have spoken at popular regular programs, such as Hosier Distinguished Visiting Intellectual Property Scholar, which was established by College of Law alumnus and nationally renowned patent attorney Gerald D. Hosier ('67); the Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer, which has been sponsored by Niro Law since its inception in 1998; and the Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law, which was established by Edward D. Manzo and feature an interactive seminar where students and faculty discuss the new work of invited patent scholars. Other talks have involved copyright, the arts, business, patents, and cybersecurity.

The Jaharis Symposium on Health Law and Intellectual Property: Genetic Justice: Data, Privacy, and Crime (March 12, 2020)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute

Recent discoveries in the field of genetics herald immense innovation for medicine and science. But they also raise significant questions related to individual privacy, societal uses of the information, and applications in the criminal justice system. For example, how should genetic information be controlled to ensure individual privacy and informed consent for all? What are the individual and societal implications of forensic uses of genetic record matching? How else should genetic information be used within the criminal justice system? Can genomic research ever be truly inclusive and representative of the diversity of our population? This interdisciplinary symposium will address issues of distributive and procedural justice in genetics and genomics, as they relate to scientific innovation, intellectual property, human subjects research, and the criminal justice system.

For more information, visit the Eventbrite site

Pharma Patents and Happiness (February 20, 2020)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute

Professor Christopher Buccafusco discussed how patent law, particularly with regards to the pharmaceutical market, could and should be used to enhance people’s welfare. He advocated changes to the patent eligibility and length for pharmaceuticals.

Christopher Buccafusco, Professor of Law and Director of Intellectual Property & Information Law Program, Cardozo School of Law

6th Annual Cyber Risk Conference – “The Crown Jewels: Protecting What’s Important” (December 3, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul's The Arditti Center for Risk Management in the Driehaus College of Business' Department of Finance and DePaul's College of Computing and Digital Media

The assets of an organization are exposed to loss from cyber-related perils in many ways: directly, such as through unauthorized access, ransomware, or spyware; and indirectly, such as through infrastructure sabotage or failure. Implementing defenses against all of these perils takes time, money, and other resources. How should an organization set priorities to protect the most important assets from the most salient perils? In this conference we explore the process of protecting the "Crown Jewel" assets from the full spectrum of cyber-related perils.

For more information, visit the Eventbrite site

Tech-Law Boot Camp III: Introduction to Privacy and Cybersecurity Law (November 20, 2019)

This discussion looked at recent court decisions from the cybersecurity front lines.

Karen Heart, DePaul College of Computing and Digital Media

Tech-Law Boot Camp II: Introduction to Internet and Cybersecurity Controls (November 13, 2019)

This discussion introduced technology concepts relevant to the law, such as the OSI model, client-server model, cookies, firewalls, digital forensics, etc. It included a general discussion of how the internet works as context for understanding technology concepts that are relevant to lawyers managing data breaches and cybersecurity compliance.

Anthony Volini, DePaul University College of Law

Arts Law Colloquium: “Prosecuting Museum Thefts in Federal Court: The Ups, Downs, and Possibilities” (November 11, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Assistant U.S. Attorney K.T. Newton has handled several cultural property-related cases including the prosecution under the Theft of Major Artwork statute of a museum visitor who broke the thumb from one of the Chinese terra cotta warrior figures that was on loan to a Philadelphia museum. This lecture provided a behind-the-scenes look at the process of search and prosecution of museum theft.

K.T. Newton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

Tech-Law Boot Camp I: Introduction to Internet Law (November 6, 2019)

Part of the new Technology and Data Protection initiative, CIPLIT®’s Tech-Law Boot Camp series features lectures by professors, practicing attorneys, and other tech specialists on relevant substantive tech topics, including tech certifications, technology management principles, data privacy, cybersecurity, networking concepts, and Internet law. These lectures are open to DePaul Law students, alumni and the entire Chicago legal community.

Mike Grynberg, DePaul University College of Law

Using IP and Technology to Ensure Access to Justice (October 21, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Public Interest Law's Pro Bono & Community Service Initiative

In honor of National Pro Bono Week, this panel discussion looked at how IP and technology could be used to promote access to justice.

Anthony Volini, DePaul University College of Law

19th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC 2019) (August 8 - 9, 2019)

Co-sponsored by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, UC Berkeley School of Law; the Intellectual Property Law Program, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University; and the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology, Stanford Law School

The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. IPSC 2019 included both plenary and "break out" sessions with break out sessions scheduled in thematic clusters to avoid obvious topic or interest "conflicts." Topics included: Copyright, Trademark and Unfair Competition Law, Patent, Trade Secret and Cyberlaw.

For more information and to read papers, visit the official IPSC 2019 site here

2019 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Stefania Fusco (April 10, 2019)

Stefania Fusco presented Dissemination of Academic Knowledge and Monetization of University Patents

In recent years, the activity of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) has been intensively studied by scholars in various disciplines. Nevertheless, numerous important aspects of the NPE operations within the U.S. patent system remain unclear. As a result, there is a strong interest in learning more about these companies, their strategies, and their possible impacts on innovation in different fields. While universities have been recognized as a category of NPE (Lemley, 2008), broad empirical studies have been lacking, or have left unaddressed important questions about how university patent enforcement may impact the university mission, and society more generally. Because academic institutions play a significant role in both producing and disseminating knowledge, additional empirically-grounded study can add to the ongoing debate on patent monetization. Relevant questions include: How do universities resemble, and differ, from other NPEs as regards patent enforcement and monetization? Do certain university stances and tactics hinder the mission that is traditionally performed by academic institutions? And, how do the behaviors of universities affect innovation, for good or ill?

Stefania Fusco, Senior Lecturer, University of Notre Dame Law School

Tech-Law Boot Camp: Cybersecurity and the Law (April 9, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Cyber Law Organization (DCLO)

Guest speaker Brian Barnes (Managing Director - IAM Management Architect at CIBC US) will speak about cybersecurity law in the United States and abroad. DePaul students will lead the discussion about the Identity Lifecycle and Identity Management Related Laws. Additional topics include: eIDAS Regulation in the EU; Virginia Electronic IDM Act; ESign Act; and GDPR.

Brian Barnes, Managing Director, IAM Management Architect, CIBC US

Can My Blockchain Do That? A Discussion of Blockchain Beyond Cryptocurrency (April 4, 2019)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)

This panel provided an overview of blockchain technology, the value of developing and patenting blockchain and the impact of blockchain technology as it is currently being used, including the VAKT Consortium.

Bo An, Risk Management, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Moderator)
Sarah Duda, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Cboe Global Markets
Mark Fields, Partner, Alsop Louie Partners
Matthew Kelly, Esq., Managing Director and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, CME Group Ted Tian, Esq., Master Agreements Negotiator, BP America, Inc.

Implications of Technology and Social Media for Domestic Violence and Family Law Cases (April 2, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Schiller DuCanto & Fleck Family Law Center

This interactive workshop explored the implications of technology in Domestic Violence and Family Court cases. Professionals learned how batterers use phone technology, social networking and GPS to circumvent injunctions for protection, supervised visitation, and child custody. Legal and Mental Health Practitioners explored how victims of domestic violence can overcome communication issues using mobile and online communication tools, such as the OurFamilyWizard website, designed specifically for high conflict parents.

Practical and Strategic Guide to the European Patent System (March 21, 2019)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)

"From filing to grant, validation, Unitary Patent and other options to obtain protection in Europe." During this talk, Dr. Robert Fichter of Dennemeyer & Associates, LLC looked at

  • Short overview of the patenting options available in Europe (national vs. regional)
  • The grant stage of a European Patent
  • Future options after grant: Unitary Patent or EP validation?
  • Efficient ways to obtain patent protection in Europe

Dr. Robert Fichter, Managing Director, Dennemeyer & Associates, LLC

SHIGA Japanese Patent Seminar (March 19, 2019)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)

Shiga International Patent Office is one of the leading IP firms in Japan with approximately 140 patent attorneys. They have been committed to assisting Fortune 500 global companies in developing their IP portfolio in Japan for over half a century and have also maintained stable business relationships with U.S. law firms and clients for a long time.

This seminar was created to enhance one’s knowledge on Japanese patent practice. Topics included: How to Pursue an Invention Directed to a Method for Treating a Human in Japan and JPO's Examination Guidelines on IoT and AI

Masato Iida, Ph.D., Vice President - Patent Attorney, Shiga
Hiroyuki Hashimoto, Ph.D. Senior Manager - Patent Attorney, Shiga

Jaharis Symposium on Health Law and Intellectual Property: “Democratizing” Medicine in a Data and Tech-Driven World (March 14, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute

In the wake of technological breakthroughs that enable the adoption of technological and data-driven innovation in medicine, significant and pressing questions of law and policy will inevitably arise. Many at the forefront of these advancements claim that innovations such as biohacking, artificial intelligence, consumer genetics, and citizen science initiatives will “democratize” medicine. They emphasize the collaborative nature of these endeavors and the accessibility of knowledge and medical services that these technologies would provide. However, critics raise legitimate legal and ethical concerns about ownership, justice, and the law’s ability to keep up with innovation. This interdisciplinary symposium will bring together experts to explore the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of some contemporary examples of “democratizing” medicine.

For more information, click here

Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Ana Santos Rutschman, "The Vaccine Race in the 21st Century" (March 13, 2019)

Ana Santos Rutschman presented The Vaccine Race in the 21st Century

In a world in which infectious diseases are spreading increasingly faster, the development of new human vaccines remains a priority in biopharmaceutical innovation. Legal scholars have addressed different aspects of vaccine regulation and administration, but virtually no attention has been paid to the role of laws governing innovation during the stages of research and development (R&D) of vaccines.

This Article provides a legal analysis of the race to develop new vaccines in the 21st century. Drawing on interviews with project directors, advisors and lawyers at partnerships focused on vaccine R&D, as well as an analysis of selected contractual provisions regulating the ownership and transfer of emerging vaccine technologies, the Article identifies a set of emerging trends: a move towards public-private partnerships as the backbone of innovative vaccine R&D; a limited, albeit occasionally detrimental, role of patent-based incentives to R&D; a consequent shift towards R&D incentives complementary to, but not centered on, strong proprietary rights; and the adoption of flexible contractual frameworks regulating transfers of vaccine technology.

While the new dynamics of vaccine R&D have already yielded new vaccine candidates, the Article also shows that current innovation regimes are insufficient to promote socially desirable levels of vaccine R&D. The Article argues that additional legal interventions are required to promote sustained innovation in the field of vaccines, and offers one such proposal: the adoption of a “take-and-pay” regime based on liability rules, enabling access to vaccine technology by follow-on innovators.

Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor, Saint Louis University School of Law

2019 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Michael Mattioli (February 27, 2019)

Michael Mattioli presented Balancing AI Biases

In the past five years, experts in various fields of the law have cautioned that bias in artificial intelligence ("AI") systems presents a grave new threat to society. These scholars have illuminated the alarming fact that AI systems are injecting new forms of prejudice into critical corners of daily life - from credit scoring to workplace equality and hiring practices, to criminal sentencing. Less attention has been devoted, however, to the fact that AI also seems likely to reduce the degree of human bias that already exists in the very same settings. This tension presents an important question with far-reaching implications for law and policy: How can we ensure that AI reduces human bias without introducing new forms of computerized discrimination? This essay doesn't answer that question; instead, it lays the groundwork by explaining how AI works and how the current policy framework - intellectual property policy, in particular - contributes to the problem of bias.

Michael Mattioli, Professor of Law, Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law

2019 Hosier Distinguished IP Lecture: Peter Swire (February 7, 2019)

Peter Swire presented The Growing Importance of the Non-Code Aspects of Cybersecurity

Computer scientists have longed assumed that “real” cybersecurity overwhelmingly deal with technical issues, primarily involving the writing and implementation of code. As cybersecurity has developed as a larger challenge for government and private organizations, non-code issues increasingly are coming to the fore. This lecture builds on research published in the Communications of the ACM about a new framework for organizing and understanding the most important aspects of cybersecurity other than code, drawing on disciplines including management, law, public policy, and international relations.

Peter Swire, Elizabeth and Tommy Holder Chair of Law and Ethics, in the Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business

Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Peter Swire (February 6, 2019)

Peter Swire presented Assessing the Adequacy of the Chinese Government’s Surveillance Practices under EU Law

During this lecture, Peter Swire discussed his new article assessing whether China would qualify as having “adequate” protection of personal information under European Union law, notably due to its extensive surveillance activities.

Peter Swire, Elizabeth and Tommy Holder Chair of Law and Ethics, in the Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business

Arts Law Colloquium: “Lost and Found: Research on Nazi-Era Looting and Restitution at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston” (February 4, 2019)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Through in-depth case studies, this lecture illustrated how the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA) has conducted research on the Nazi-era provenance, or ownership history, of its encyclopedic collection. The lecture provided a behind-the-scenes look at the process of research and documentation of seizures, thefts, and losses in Europe between 1933 and 1945. It also explored issues of the restitution of artwork, both in the immediate postwar period and in the present. Finally, the lecture considered art museum policy and practice today, and how a museum must take steps to ensure that it conducts sufficient research to avoid acquiring a work of art lost or stolen during this critical period in history.

Victoria Reed, Sadler Curator for Provenance at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

5th Annual Cyber Risk Conference - “Cyber Risk R/Evolution” (November 27, 2018)

Co-sponsored by DePaul's The Arditti Center for Risk Management in the Driehaus College of Business' Department of Finance and DePaul's College of Computing and Digital Media

We are all exposed to cyber risk, both as individuals and as professionals. We need to be able to use sensitive data and accurately price and value the risks that our employers and clients take on or are exposed to. Four panels addressed the topics of emerging threats, supply chain security, evolving insurance, and privacy issues. The conference will begin and end with keynote speakers who are experts in cyber security and will include a lunch as well as a reception, providing opportunities for networking.

For more information, click visit the Eventbrite page

Arts Law Colloquium: “Underwater Cultural Heritage in Court and At Sea: The Lost Fleet of Jean Ribault (1565) & the Battle of the Egadi Islands (241 BCE)” (November 5, 2018)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Attorney James Goold is the pre-eminent litigator in representing European nations, including Spain, France and Italy, and international archaeological and cultural institutions in protecting historic sunken ships from looting. Mr. Goold’s talk featured his most recent case in which he won protection for France for a little known French warship sunk in 1565 that may be the most historically significant shipwreck in North American history. Mr. Goold also made a presentation on his most prominent current nautical archaeology project, locating and recovering the remains of the 241 B.C. Battle of Egadi Islands in which the Navy of Republican Rome defeated the Carthaginian Navy and won the First Punic War.

James Goold, Of Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judges Panel Discussion and Reception (October 2, 2018)

CIPLIT® provided an opportunity to hear thoughts, insights and opinions from judges from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Professor Josh Sarnoff lead the panel.

Josh Sarnoff, DePaul University College of Law (Moderator)
Hon. Sharon Prost, Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Hon. Jimmie Reyna, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Hon. Richard Taranto, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Hon. Evan Wallach, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Arts Law Colloquium: From the Okinawa Dugong to the Grand Canyon: Using Law to Protect Cultural Heritage (October 1, 2018)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Historic preservation law plays a crucial role in the preservation of cultural heritage in the United States and abroad. Using recent examples and narratives, Will Cook, explored preservation success stories, and a few losses, through a legal lens. He will talk about international, nationwide, and local preservation issues and suggest creative strategies for advocates to consider.

Will Cook, Associate General Counsel, National Trust for Historic Preservation

International Patent Practice (September 26, 2018)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)

This seminar about international patent practice was divided into two parts. The first part was dedicated to tips on drafting patent applications for filing in the European Patent Office, and the second part covered maximizing patent protection in Canada.

Mash-Hud Iqbal, Patent Attorney, Marks & Clerk LLP (Part 1)
Tomas Karger, Patent Agent, Marks & Clerk LLP (Part 2)

2018 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Saurabh Vishnubhakat (April 11, 2018)

Saurabh Vishnubhakat presented The Porous Court-Agency Boundary in Patent Law

The progression toward reevaluating patent validity in the administrative, rather than judicial, setting became overtly substitutionary in the America Invents Act. No longer content to encourage court litigants to rely on Patent Office expertise for faster, cheaper, and more accurate validity decisions, Congress in the AIA took steps to force a choice. The result is an emergent border between court and agency power in the U.S. patent system. By design, the border is not absolute. Concurrent activity in both settings over the same dispute remains possible. What is troubling is the systematic weakening of this border by Patent Office encroachments on powers Congress left to the courts. This Article traces the statutory roots of those encroachments, their initial encouragement by the Supreme Court’s 2016 Cuozzo decision, and the recent resistance to their further expansion by the en banc Federal Circuit’s 2018 Wi-Fi One decision.

Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Associate Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law

Lessons From 1871 & 2112 (March 29, 2018)

Student Panelists discussed legal issues in connection with 1871 and 2112 presentations they've encountered in their course: Innovation & the Law at 1871/2112 (Prof. Volini). Topics include: Intellectual Property; Patent Issues; Music Law issues; IP protections re: wildlife poaching; Technology; Contract issues; Blockchain; Immigration issues; Trademark issues

1871 is a famous Chicago tech incubator while 2112 is a relatively new TV/Film/Music industry incubator.

For video, click here

2018 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Sarah Burstein (March 21, 2018)

Sarah Burstein presented The "Article of Manufacture" Today

In Samsung v. Apple, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “article of manufacture” in 35 U.S.C. § 289 of the Patent Act can refer either to the infringer’s end product or to a component thereof. But the Court refused to formulate a test for what constitutes the relevant “article” in a given case. Some have argued that courts should adopt the multi-factor, case-specific approach proposed by the U.S. Government in its Samsung amicus brief. However, that approach is based on a flawed legal premise, fails to reflect either the language of the statute or the original intent, and will increase costs and uncertainty in design patent litigation. This Article proposes a new solution. It argues that courts should adopt the historical meaning of the phrase “article of manufacture” in interpreting and applying 35 U.S.C. § 289. It also argues that the determination of which article a particular design is “applied” to should be informed by the original understanding of what constituted a protectable “design.” This Article then proposes a framework for applying these principles to Samsung step one, including an explanation of why this should be treated as an issue of law, not an issue of fact. This approach provides a workable solution that would be easier and cheaper to apply than the other tests that have been proposed. This approach would also minimize the in terrorem value of partial design patents and result in more defensible damages awards that would more accurately reflect the designer’s actual contribution without providing a windfall to most design patentees.

Sarah Burstein, Associate Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law

Inside the European Patent Office: Questions & Answers (March 7, 2018)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) Patents - International Committee 

During this talk, Alfred Keyack discussed his career as an European Patent Office (EPO) Attaché. In this role, he serves as a point of contact and provides information to the filers in the US, including large companies, patent attorney organizations or industry associations.

Alfred Keyack, EPO Attaché to the United States.

Arts Law Colloquium: “A Tragic Fate-Law and Ethics in the Battle Over Nazi Looted Art” (February 26, 2018)

Co-sponsored by the DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Attorney and author Nicholas M. O'Donnell discussed his recent book, A Tragic Fate-Law and Ethics in the Battle Over Nazi Looted Art. The book is a comprehensive overview of the litigations over allegedly Nazi-looted art that have played out in the United States. During the lecture, Mr. O'Donnell addressed trends in this litigation and comparisons to other countries' approaches.

Nicholas M. O’Donnell, Partner, Sullivan & Worcester

2018 Jaharis Symposium on Health Law and Intellectual Property: Technological and Emergency Responses to Pandemic Diseases (February 22, 2018)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute

Hosted by DePaul University College of Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute and CIPLIT®, this conference focused on “best practices” in response to emerging pandemic diseases. The conference included panel discussions addressing specific issues in regards to pandemic diseases and two distinguished keynote speakers - Lawrence Gostin, University Professor and Faculty Director at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University and Richard Wilder. Associate General Counsel, Global Health Program for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

For more information, click here

Arts Law Colloquium: “Let Us Rebury Our Dead: Native America's Imperfect and Necessary Law” (January 22, 2018)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Five decades ago, Native American leaders launched a crusade against museums to reclaim their sacred objects and to rebury their kin. This controversy has exploded in recent years as hundreds of U.S. tribes have used a 1990 landmark federal law—the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act—to recover their looted heritage from more than one thousand museums across America. Many still question how to balance the religious freedoms of Native Americans with the academic freedoms of American scientists, and the arguments continue on about whether the emptying of museum shelves elevates human rights or destroys humanity’s common heritage.

This lecture from Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science focused on NAGPRA's most contentious question: What to do with human remains that cannot be culturally affiliated with living descendants or tribes? Dr. Colwell will examine the historical, legal, and ethical boundaries these skeletal remains present, and share how one museum has navigated one of NAGPRA's most imperfect but necessary sections.

Chip Colwell, Senior Curator of Anthropology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science

Proper Bounds of Transparency for IP Transactions: Exploring the Level of Disclosure Required To Meet FRAND Compliance (December 13, 2017)

In light of aggressive litigants, governmental antitrust scrutiny and potential imposition of large penalties regarding IP licensing practices, technology firms must be more vigilant with IP disclosures and transparency protocol, carefully balancing the benefits and liabilities of too little or too much disclosure of IP transaction information, such as patent licensing terms.

This webinar on IP Transparency focused on the level of disclosure of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and SEP licensing terms required to comply with Standard Development Organization (SDO) obligations for owners of SEPs, including obligations to provide fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. When government fair trade and antitrust entities from the EU to Taiwan are being more aggressive, SEP owners must carefully consider whether greater transparency regarding their SEPs and SEP (and non-SEP) licensing terms is warranted to help avoid the potential of government scrutiny. The highly experienced panel for this webinar will cover issues from avoidance of violation of confidentiality clauses of SEP licenses to new services and strategies to help enhance levels of transparency of SDOs, patent offices and technology firms.

Christian Loyau, Legal and Governance Affairs Director, ETSI
Patrick Hofkens, Director IPR Policy, Ericsson
John Dubiansky, Attorney Advisor, Intellectual Property, Federal Trade Commission
Richard Cederoth, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
David Newman, Partner & Chair, IP Practice, Gould & Ratner LLP

DePaul University's Fourth Annual Cyber-Risk Conference: Emerging Technology, Unknown Risks (November 28, 2017)

Co-sponsored by DePaul's The Arditti Center for Risk Management in the Driehaus College of Business' Department of Finance and DePaul's College of Computing and Digital Media

New and evolving technologies such as artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, machine learning, and robotic process automation are now an everyday reality. Similarly, use of the Cloud and third party systems have grown dramatically as the technology has become more complex.

Business practices are being rapidly transformed in all sectors—from expediting insurance claims, automating financial processes, and revolutionizing search algorithms to heralding a paradigm shift in cyber security and military technology. These emerging technologies provide a host of new benefits, but also create a horde of new risks. This conference examined the real impact that these technologies have on all businesses—not just tech-firms.

For more information, including a full list of topics and speakers, click here

Visiting Artist Series: Jonathan Wolff (October 31, 2017)

Acclaimed musician/composer/songwriter Jonathan Wolff created the music for 75 primetime network TV series, as well as the themes for 44 of those series - including Seinfeld and Will & Grace. During this talk, Jonathan Wolff offered practical music business model do's-and-don'ts, along with real world entrepreneurial career need-to-know and how-to-get-hired advice.

Wolff credits much of his financial success to his lawyer/friend/genie, Steve Winogradsky. Though sometimes overlooked, the composer-attorney relationship is an essential creative and business partnership. In this lecture, Wolff provides the composer’s view of it.

For more information about this event, click here

Jonathan Wolff, Film/Television Composer

For What It’s Worth: Fundamentals of IP Valuation (October 30, 2017)

The presentation provided attendees with an introduction to the topic of intellectual property valuation. Speakers Scott Weingust and Jordan Salins from Stout offered an overview of the topic by focusing on the valuation process, relevant valuation standards, and intellectual property valuation “fundamentals” such as the purpose of the valuation standard of value and valuation date. The speakers further discussed the three common approaches used for valuing intellectual property – Cost, Market, and Income. For each approach, they defined the approach and provided some observations regarding strengths, weaknesses, and proper application. Finally, they presented a short case study for the valuation of intellectual property in supporting a licensing-out transaction.

Scott Weingust, Managing Director, Stout
Jordan Salins, Senior Analyst, Stout

Arts Law Colloquium: “Practicing Law in the World of Art” (September 18, 2017)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Scott Hodes, Senior Counsel at Bryan Cave and renowned art law expert, represents a number of prominent artists, dealers and collectors in all aspects of their business. He has written extensively on the subject, including publishing three books on art and the law. During this lecture, he discussed his career and “Practicing Law in the World of Art.”

Scott Hodes, Senior Counsel, Bryan Cave

2017 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Erik Hovenkamp (April 5, 2017)

Erik Hovenkamp presented Competition, Inalienability, and the Economic Analysis of Patent Law

Most influential theories about private disputes, including the Coase theorem, assume that there are no legal restraints on alienability. However, antitrust often creates inalienability in patent disputes by imposing limitations on how competing firms may transact commercial rights, including IP. This may prohibit the parties' from entering into anticompetitive settlements, although it does not prevent a court from issuing an injunction, which necessarily lessens competition. The result is ultimately that, in contrast to familiar Coasean logic, a court’s delimitation of patent rights can influence the final allocation of such rights, even if the parties can bargain. Further, the parties may (rationally) litigate to judgment even if they have common expectations about litigation, and even if they are perfectly capable of entering into a lawful settlement ex ante. Antitrust inalienability thus critically alters the economic nature of a private dispute, distinguishing it from the more conventional property conflicts studied in classical law and economics. Aside from altering the parties’ incentives and behavior, it changes the appropriate normative policies toward settlement. When disputed rights are subject to alienability restraints, the courts should generally be more cautious about settlement, and less wary of issuing final judgments. Unfortunately, the patent courts have missed this, and continue to rubber-stamp virtually all settlement proposals. In contrast, I argue that they should review settlements in cases presenting a prima facie antitrust concern, and I explain how such review ought to operate in practice.

Erik Hovenkamp, Visiting Fellow, Northwestern University

2017 Distinguished Hosier Lecture: Joseph Fishman (March 30, 2017)

Joseph Fishman presented Creating Around Copyright

It is generally understood that the copyright system constrains downstream creators by limiting their ability to use protected works in follow-on expression. Those who view the promotion of creativity as copyright’s mission usually consider this constraint to be a necessary evil at best and an unnecessary one at worst. This conventional wisdom rests on the seemingly intuitive premise that more creative choice will deliver more creativity. Yet that premise is belied by both the history of the arts and contemporary psychological research on the creative process. In fact, creativity flourishes best not under complete freedom, but rather under a moderate amount of restriction. Drawing from work in cognitive psychology, management studies, and art history, this Article argues that contemporary copyright discourse has overlooked constraint’s generative upside. The Article unpacks the concept of constraint into seven characteristics: source, target, scope, clarity, timing, severity, and polarity. These characteristics function as levers that determine a given constraint’s generative potential. Variation in that potential provides an underappreciated theoretical justification for areas in which copyright law is restrictive, such as the exclusive derivative work right, as well as areas where it is permissive, such as the independent creation and fair use defenses. The Article reveals that the incentives versus access debate that has long dominated copyright theory has misunderstood the relationship between creativity and constraint. Information may want to be free, but creativity does not.

Joseph Fishman, Associate Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School

Arts Law Colloquium: “The "Art" of Negotiating License Agreements” (March 29, 2017)

Co-sponsored by the DePaul's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

DePaul law alumna Christina Pannos discussed licensing agreements for the benefit of artists with topics including learning how to spot particularly important provisions and red flags and practicing drafting favorable terms for your future clients.

For more information, click here

Christina Pannos, Associate, Howe & Hutton

2017 Jaharis Symposium on Health Law and Intellectual Property: Telehealth: Transforming the Healthcare Delivery Landscape (March 9, 2017)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute

According to academics, the media, and commentators, telehealth may soon dramatically transform health care practices. If implemented correctly, modern digital technologies can reduce costs, expand accessibility, and increase quality. Telehealth, however, can also introduce significant risks to providers and consumers.

The 2017 Annual Jaharis Symposium focused on exploring the legal, ethical, and regulatory implications of health care providers’ uses of telehealth. Over the course of the program, legal and medical experts discussed the top current issues and preview the challenges that lie ahead during panels such as “Contemporary Implementation Issues & Forthcoming Regulation,” “Intellectual Property Considerations in Telehealth” and “Ethics in the Field of Telehealth.”

For more information, click here

2017 Hosier IP Scholars: Yolanda King (March 9, 2017)

Yolanda King presented The Enforcement Challenges for Tattoo Copyrights

Who owns the copyright in a tattoo? Can the owner enforce a tattoo copyright, and if so, what is the scope of enforcement of a tattoo copyright? These are questions I left unresolved in The Challenges “Facing” Copyright Protection for Tattoos. In that Article, I asserted that, despite a lack of any reported decisions, tattoos are copyrightable works. However, I noted that the related issues of ownership and enforcement are appropriate subject matter for a separate article. This Article is the follow-up to the first Article, a natural progression in the analysis of the application of copyright law to tattoos.

Yolanda King, Associate Professor of Law, Northern Illinois University College of Law

2017 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Rebecca Eisenberg (March 8, 2017)

Rebecca Eisenberg presented Innovation in a Learning Healthcare System

In a learning healthcare system, records of past treatments and outcomes provide an ongoing source of data that guides continuous improvements in the standard of care in light of accumulating experience. Analyzing these data could permit significant improvements in healthcare while lowering its costs. There are many advantages to using data from a learning healthcare system to evaluate the performance of health technologies rather than relying on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by product developing firms. A learning healthcare system also has significant implications for the funding and regulation of biomedical innovation. It could reorient the roles of institutions that currently drive healthcare innovation in profound ways. If payers want to reap the benefits of a learning healthcare system rather than merely underwriting its costs, they may need to take a larger role in evaluating healthcare technologies.

Rebecca Eisenberg, Robert and Barbara Luciano Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School

2017 Hosier IP Scholars: Reid Kress Weisbord (March 2, 2017)

Reid Kress Weisbord presented A Copyright Right of Publicity

This Article identifies a striking asymmetry in the law’s disparate treatment of publicity-rights holders and copyright holders. State-law publicity rights generally protect individuals from unauthorized use of their name and likeness by others. Publicity-claim liability, however, is limited by the First Amendment’s protection for expressive speech embodying a “transformative use” of the publicity-rights holder’s identity. This Article examines for the first time a further limitation imposed by copyright law: when a publicity-rights holder’s identity is transformatively depicted in a copyrighted work without consent, the author’s copyright can produce the peculiar result of enjoining the publicity-rights holder from using or engaging in speech about her own depiction. This Article offers novel contributions to the literature on copyright overreach and: (1) identifies a legal asymmetry produced in the interplay of publicity rights, copyright law, and the First Amendment; (2) examines the burdens on constitutionally protected speech, autonomy, and liberty interests of publicity-rights holders when copyright law prevents or constrains use of their own depiction; and (3) outlines a framework for recognizing a “copyright right of publicity” to exempt the publicity-rights holder’s use from copyright infringement liability.

Notably, this Article contributes uniquely to the literature by including an exclusive first-person narrative by an internationally recognized celebrity whose persona was prominently depicted without prior notice or consent in a wide-release feature film.

Reid Kress Weisbord, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School

Arts Law Colloquium: “Cultural Heritage in 2017: Is Technology An Answer, Another Problem or a Red Herring” (February 6, 2017)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

During this special lecture by Sarah Parcak, she discussed recent advances in the use of digital technologies, big data, crowdsourcing, and 3D mapping in the protection and preservation of cultural treasures in the context of ongoing project work in Egypt and Peru.

For more information, click here

Sarah Parcak, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and winner of the 2016 TED Prize

2017 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law: Greg Reilly (February 1, 2017)

Greg Reilly presented Rethinking the PHOSITA In Patent Litigation

This Article questions the trend in Supreme Court cases and academic commentary toward greater reliance on patent litigation on the hypothetical “person having ordinary skill in the art” (“PHOSITA”)—essentially a person of average abilities in the technical field of the invention. This trend reflects a desire to approach as closely as possible the first-best outcome of accuracy to the technical merits of patent disputes. But this first-best outcome is impossible given the constraints imposed by lay decision makers. Long-standing proposals to tailor patent litigation institutions to patent law’s technical nature by increasing the technical competence of decision makers have made little headway. If lay decision makers are here to stay, then the optimal approach is to tailor patent law to the needs of these lay decision makers, including by reducing and constraining the PHOSITA’s role. Lay judges and jurors lack the knowledge, training, and experience to reliably apply the PHOSITA’s perspective themselves. Therefore, increased reliance on the PHOSITA equates with increased reliance on expert witnesses, which introduces a host of well-recognized problems. Attempting to approximate the theoretical ideal of technical fidelity through the PHOSITA is misguided due to the errors introduced by the expert witnesses necessitated by lay decision makers. Tailoring patent law to the needs of lay decision makers—including more legalistic and objective doctrines that reduce the role of the PHOSITA—may be optimal in practice, even if second-best in theory.

Greg Reilly, Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Arbitration in IP Context (October 5, 2016)

CIPLIT® ran a joint program with the American Arbitration Association on “Arbitration in IP Context.”

Arts Law Colloquium: “Legal Protection of Movable Cultural Relics in China” (September 26, 2016)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Many western countries, including the U.S., lead the world in cultural heritage protection, while China, in contrast, has a long way to go. There are many special problems and circumstances that China faces. Professor Yunxia Wang's lecture, "Legal Protection of Movable Cultural Relics in China," gave a brief review of China's legal system related to the protection of movable cultural relics. It focused primarily on limits on transferability, the export and import of movable cultural relics, and the legal liability that violators of these laws face, as well as the gap between legislation and enforcement will also be examined.

Yunxia Wang, Professor of Law, Renmin University of China; Deputy Director, Cultural Heritage Law Research Institute

17th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecture & Luncheon: Zorina Khan (September 22, 2016)

Zorina Khan presented Trolls and Other Patent Inventions: Economic History and the Patent Controversy in the Twenty-First Century

Is the U.S. patent system today in crisis because of excessive litigation, patent trolls, radical new technological advances, and other unprecedented developments of the twenty-first century? The historical record sheds light on the nature and validity of these controversies, and proposed policy solutions. Such empirical information from the past two centuries as patents granted, litigation rates, and analyses of the role of non-practicing entities, indicate that the present features of the market in intellectual property are hardly anomalous. Indeed, they have been inherently associated with disruptive technologies that transformed the United States into the global leader in industrial and economic growth.

Zorina Khan, Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College

IPLAC Women in IP Committee Eleventh Annual Federal Judicial Panel & Reception (April 11, 2016)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)

The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) is the oldest intellectual property law association in the United States, operating since 1884. IPLAC’s Women in IP Committee presented the Eleventh Annual Federal Judicial Panel at DePaul University College of Law.

2016 Jaharis Symposium on Health Law and Intellectual Property: The New Frontier of Health Innovation: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape (March 15, 2016)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute

At the forefront of the health care sector, medical practitioners, technological savants, and other professionals are working together to use technological advances to improve upon traditional practices. Their work has already had revolutionary effects in certain areas of medicine and many believe that we are only at the tip of the iceberg. However in order to succeed, health care innovators must navigate through an increasingly complex set of statutory and administrative rules. The Spring Symposium will feature the insights of individuals who overcame these hurdles and the legal practitioners that aided their efforts.

Dirty Words & Filthy Pictures: Film and the First Amendment (March 3, 2016)

From the earliest days of cinema, scandalous films such as The Kiss (1896) attracted audiences eager to see provocative images on screen. With controversial content, motion pictures challenged social norms and prevailing laws at the intersection of art and entertainment. Today, the First Amendment protects a wide range of free speech, but this wasn’t always the case. For the first fifty years, movies could be censored and banned by city and state officials charged with protecting the moral fabric of their communities. Once film was embraced under the First Amendment by the Supreme Court’s Miracle decision in 1952, new problems pushed notions of acceptable content even further.

Jeremy Geltzer’s book, Dirty Words & Filthy Pictures, explores movies that changed the law and resulted in greater creative freedom for all. Relying on primary sources that include court decisions, contemporary periodicals, state censorship ordinances, and studio production code, Geltzer offered a comprehensive and fascinating history of cinema and free speech, from the earliest films of Thomas Edison to the impact of pornography and the Internet.

Jeremy Geltzer, Attorney, Law Office of Jeremy Geltzer

Arts Law Colloquium: The Legal Lives of Levantine Artifacts (February 8, 2016)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

"The Legal Lives of Levantine Artifacts” looks at the looting and trafficking of antiquities from the Eastern Mediterranean examined how law plays an important role in the social lives of artifacts. For the last decade or more, the legal lives of high-profile Levantine artifacts have been front-page news, focusing on particular artifacts like the Persepolis archives, the James Ossuary, the Mesha Stele, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but laws concerning cultural heritage also affect more prosaic items, everyday items purchased and esteemed by visitors to the region. The colonial legal relics of the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate period are enshrined in current laws in Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. In this presentation, Dr. Morag Kersel, Professor of Anthropology at DePaul University and CAMCHL's affiliated faculty member, will examined how these historical inheritances and current practices influence the social lives of Levantine artifacts.

Dr. Morag Kersel, Professor of Anthropology, DePaul University

How do I protect that? A mock client interview identifying protectable IP in terms of patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. (February 4, 2016)

The presentation addressed the practical intersections of the various intellectual property regimes. Clients, potential clients, acquaintances, and even family members often have IP law questions related to their products/inventions/businesses, but do not understand the distinctions between each different type of intellectual property. The lawyer's job is to educate and to focus the discussion, identifying pressing issues in separate areas of intellectual property law. The program is designed as a mock client intake interview, illustrating how different IP law issues present themselves in the real world.

Arts Law Colloquium: "Organized and White-Collar Crime in Trafficking Networks" (November 16, 2015)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

During "Organized and White-Collar Crime in Trafficking Networks,” Simon Mackenzie, Neil Brodie and Donna Yates from the Trafficking Culture research group at the University of Glasgow explored the illicit market in cultural objects from end to end: beginning with a case study of organized criminal activity in a source country and following the chain of supply through transit portals and into the market.

Drawing on cases like the seizure in the U.S. of the Duryodhana statue, originally taken from the Koh Ker temple complex in Cambodia, and its return to Cambodia, the speakers examined evidence of paths that similar statues have taken out of Cambodia and other countries, and the various roles of the players involved in their removal and transit. The lecture also explored how actors in the public trade sector deal with the market reception of illicit cultural objects, and consider comparisons with dealing and collecting mentalities in other precious collectible markets.

Simon Mackenzie, Trafficking Culture Research Group, University of Glasgow
Neil Brodie, Trafficking Culture Research Group, University of Glasgow
Donna Yates, Trafficking Culture Research Group, University of Glasgow

Update on the Implementation of the Unified Patent Court in the EU (November 3, 2015)

Co-sponsored by Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)

CIPLIT® and the IPLAC International Patent Committee and Litigation Committee presented a seminar featuring Kevin Mooney, a Partner from the London office of Simmons & Simmons. Mr. Mooney presented an update on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) that is expected to be put in place next year in the European Union, the latest UPC developments and timetable, and what US lawyers should be advising their clients concerning preparing for the UPC.

Kevin Mooney, Partner, Simmons & Simmons

Patent-eligibility in Europe (October 15, 2015)

This discussion about patent-eligibility in Europe was given by Dr. Julian Cockbain, a Consultant European Patent Attorney based in Gent, Belgium and Oxford, UK. After taking a degree and a doctorate in chemistry at Oxford University, he joined the patent and trademark attorney firm Dehns in London in 1979, qualifying as a UK patent attorney in 1983 and as a European Patent Attorney in 1984. He was appointed partner at Dehns in 1985, a position he held until becoming a consultant in 2012. During his work as a patent attorney he wrote and prosecuted several hundred patent applications and represented his clients numerous times before the UK, European and US patent offices. He has written numerous articles on patent-related matters, and in 2012 a book on exclusions from patentability (co-authored with Prof. Sigrid Sterckx of Gent University) was published by Cambridge University Press

Julian Cockbain, Consultant European Patent Attorney, Bioethics Institute Ghent

Arts Law Colloquium: Restitution Roulette: A Comparison of U.S. and European Approaches (October 14, 2015)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

In the United States, the film Woman in Gold and the discovery of the Gurlitt trove of well over a thousand works of art in Munich captured the imagination of the public as nothing has done in recent memory concerning restitution of Nazi-era looted art. This increased curiosity and desire to understand the complexities of Nazi-era looting and post-war restitution comes at a time when restitution claims have become more complex and difficult to resolve.

During the lecture, "Restitution Roulette: A Comparison of U.S. and European Approaches," Thomas R. Kline compared the different circumstances and laws that govern restitution in the U.S. and Europe and examined how approaches to such claims on both sides of the Atlantic have led to uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes.

Thomas R. Kline, Of Counsel, Andrews Kurth LLP


Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) 2015 (August 7-8, 2015)

Co-sponsored by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, UC Berkeley School of Law; the Intellectual Property Law Program, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University; and the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology, Stanford Law School

The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. IPSC 2015 included both plenary and "break out" sessions with break out sessions scheduled in thematic clusters to avoid obvious topic or interest "conflicts." Topics included: Copyright, Trademark and Unfair Competition Law, Patent, Trade Secret and Cyberlaw.

For more information and to read papers, visit the official IPSC 2015 site here

2015 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law V: Jeffrey A. Lefstin (April 15, 2015)

Jeffrey A. Lefstin presented on The Three Faces of Prometheus: A Post-Alice Jurisprudence of Abstractions

While Alice v. CLS Bank has confirmed that patent claims require a further “inventive concept” beyond an underlying abstract idea or law of nature for patent-eligibility, there is little agreement on what defines either an “abstract idea” or an “inventive concept.” Resolving that uncertainty is critical to determining the patent-eligibility of software claims beyond the simple “do it on a computer” type invalidated in Alice. This Article argues that the rationale and two-step analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice represent a fundamental reorientation of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, and provide a principled reason to transcend the Court’s earlier § 101 cases. Based on the structure of the Mayo/Alice test, this Article argues for a differentiated framework of “inventive concept,” requiring inventive application for most abstract ideas, but only non-generic application for most laws of nature. Under this framework, two key classes of subject matter remain patent-eligible: claims that do more than reveal the results of an underlying law of nature, and claims to specific and inventive information-processing techniques.

Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Professor of Law, UC Hasting College of Law

2015 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law IV: Liza Vertinsky (March 18, 2015)

Liza Vertinsky presented on Patents, Partnerships, and the Pre-Competitive Collaboration Myth in Pharmaceutical Innovation

Public-private partnerships offer a promising alternative paradigm for pharmaceutical innovation in complex disease areas where there are both strong commercial interests and significant public need. They have the potential to reduce the tremendous waste associated with duplicative unsuccessful drug development efforts and to encourage the sharing of knowledge essential to accelerate pharmaceutical innovation. Patents threaten the potential of partnership strategies, however, by making it harder to sustain robust systems of knowledge sharing. Policymakers have tried to avoid this problem by focusing partnership strategies on areas deemed to be “pre-competitive” — areas of collaboration without competition and typically also without patents.

This Article suggests that the current “pre-competitive” approach to partnership strategies in pharmaceutical innovation is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First, it ignores the competitive market pressures that both shape what is deemed to be “pre-competitive” and fuel tensions within partnerships between sharing knowledge and staking out proprietary rights to gain competitive advantage. Second, it limits partnerships to areas where sharing already occurs instead of concentrating them in areas where greater sharing is badly needed but unlikely to occur.

Instead of a “pre-competitive” partnership strategy, we need a partnership strategy that works in areas of competitive collaboration. To support such a strategy, we need to recalibrate the balance of access and exclusion to knowledge that patents and other sources of exclusivity provide in the drug discovery and development process. The Article concludes that a targeted statutory patent fair use may begin to push the pharmaceutical industry towards more collaborative innovation, and that public and private efforts to accelerate cures for Alzheimer’s disease provide a natural area for such an experiment.

Liza Vertinsky, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

2015 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law III: Jonathan Masur (March 4, 2015)

Jonathan Masur presented on The Misuse of Patent Licenses in Damages Calculations

Patents are becoming an increasingly large business with ever greater resources devoted to litigation and enforcement. At the center of that business lie the damages that courts award at trial and the ways in which courts go about calculating those damages. Yet the legal standards meant to govern patent damages are notoriously ambiguous and unhelpful. In the face of these difficulties, courts have sought a market mechanism that would aid them in calculating patent damages. The solution they have seized upon is to use existing licenses, typically granted by the plaintiff to third parties, as evidence of the proper measure of damages. But the use of existing licenses to measure reasonable royalty damages creates three significant and distinct problems: first, it relies upon private information available only to the parties to the preexisting licensing agreement; second, it is ineluctably circular; and third, it creates incentives for the patent holder to distort the value of the licenses it negotiates in order to mislead the court. This Article describes and analyzes these three problems and then turns to potential solutions. It evaluates a variety of possible reforms, including selection of particular licenses for comparison or the application of a multiplier to the value of existing licenses. Though several of these solutions show promise, none come close to being a complete answer. It may well be that courts have no choice but to largely ignore existing licenses when calculating patent damages, leaving them more at sea than ever.

Jonathan Masur, John P. Wilson Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

2015 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law II: Daryl Lim (February 18, 2015)

Daryl Lim presented on Living with Monsanto

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw back rights that patent exhaustion has extinguished.

Beyond patent exhaustion, the Supreme Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis recently held that the exercise patent rights, even if validly obtained and infringed, are subject to scrutiny under the rule of reason. The “scope of the patent” approach that shielded Monsanto from scrutiny under antitrust law and patent misuse in the past should be reexamined. The effects-focused approach under Actavis will help yield outcomes that better track policy goals. That approach should contain three features. First, it should be based on a coherent theory of harm. Second, that theory should be supported by evidence that the harm can be effected. Third, the approach should contain heuristics to make it administrable, such as harm to competition and innovation and a shifting of the burde¬n of production in appropriate cases informed by judicial experience and economic learning.

Daryl Lim, Assistant Professor, The John Marshall Law School

2015 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law I: Michael Burstein (February 4, 2015)

Michael Burstein presented on Patent Markets: A Framework for Evaluation

Patents have become financial assets, in both practice and theory. A nascent market for patents routinely produces headline-grabbing transactions in patent portfolios, and patent assertion entities frequently defend themselves as sources of liquidity essential for a patent market to function. Much of the discourse surrounding these developments assumes that a robust, liquid market for patents would improve the operation of the patent system. In this Essay, I challenge that assumption and systematically assess the cases for and against patent markets. I do so by taking seriously both the underlying innovation promotion goal of the patent system and the lessons of financial economics, and asking what might be the effects of a market for patents that looked roughly like other familiar markets for stocks, real estate, or secondhand goods. I conclude that, like much in patent law, the effects of robust patent markets are likely to vary with specific technological and business contexts. When there is a close fit between patents and useful technologies, a patent market can support a market for technology that aids in connecting inventors with developers and sources of capital for commercialization. But when that fit breaks down, market pricing could favor litigation over commercialization. Similarly, a liquid patent market might help to allocate the risks of innovation and of patent infringement to the parties best able to bear it, but a kind of moral hazard familiar to the market for subprime mortgages could lead not to more innovation but to more patents, thereby increasing the overall risk in the system. This analysis suggests that we are having the wrong conversation about patent markets. Rather than assuming their utility and asking how to improve them, we should be undertaking empirical research to determine the circumstances in which they will or will not work and exercising caution in invoking the logic of markets in policy debates about the contours of the patent system.

Michael Burstein, Assistant Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University


2014 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Laura Pedraza Fariña (April 16, 2014)
  • Glynn Lunney (March 5, 2014)
  • Shubha Ghosh (February 19, 2014)
  • Melissa Wasserman (February 5, 2014)

2014 Arts Law Colloquium Speakers

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

  • Travis Mc-Dade, Curator of Law Rare Books, University of Illinois College of Law, “Ten Year Heist: The Looting of Kenyon College’s Special Collections and the Role of the Civil Suit in Preventing These Crimes” (November 5, 2014)
  • Ryan Rowberry, Assistant Professor of Law and Associate Director for the Center for the Comparative Study of Metropolitan Growth, Georgia State University College of Law, “Protecting Cultural Heritage From Disaster” (September 22, 2014)
  • Colonel (Ret.) Richard B. “Dick” Jackson, Special Assistant to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters, “Operational Law: Applying Law on the Battlefield” (March 17, 2014)


15th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecture & Luncheon: Hons. Paul R. Michel (Ret.) and James F. Holderman (October 15, 2013)

Hons. Paul R. Michel (Ret.) and James F. Holderman presented on "How to Retain Patent Enforcement While Reforming It – Judges and Counsel Should Manage Infringement Suits, not Congress"

For more information, click here

Hon. Paul R Michel (Ret.), Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Commentator
Hon. James F Holderman, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

The Visual Artist's Rights Act, Copyright and Conceptual Art: Creating and Protecting Art after Chapman Kelley v. Chicago Park District (June 13, 2013)

The Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology (CIPLIT®) and The Chicago Bar Association Media and Entertainment Committee presented “The Visual Artist’s Rights Act, Copyright and Conceptual Art: Creating and Protecting Art After Chapman Kelley v. Chicago Park District” which featured Artist Chapman Kelley and Founding Director of CIPLIT, Professor Roberta Kwall.

Chapman Kelley, Artist,
Roberta Kwall, Raymond P. Niro Professor of Intellectual Property Law; Founding Director, Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology, DePaul University College of Law

Visiting Artist Series: Hank Neuberger

Visiting Artist Hank Neuberger spoke about his experiences as a long-time music producer in a highly competitive field. A Grammy winner himself, Mr. Neuberger has been the Supervisor of Broadcast Audio for the annual Grammy Awards telecast for twenty-five years. He has also produced numerous live multi-channel Music Festival Webcasts as well as CDs, DVDs, and broadcasts of the performances of top artists, including Lady Antebellum and The Million Dollar Quartet cast. Mr. Neuberger discussed the rights issues and challenges connected to his Festival Webcasting along with other legal issues that he has faced as a working producer.

Hank Neuberger, Founder, Springboard Productions

2013 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Josh Golden (April 17, 2013)
  • Okar Liivak (March 20, 2013)
  • Thomas Cotter (March 6, 2013)
  • Margo Bagley (February 20, 2013)
  • Ted Sichelman (February 6, 2013)


Navigating the Minefield of Trademark Protection in China (October 30, 2012)

Daniel Chow spoke about common mistakes that multinational companies (MNCs) repeatedly make protecting their brands and trademarks in China. The presentation used various examples to demonstrate why MNCs make costly mistakes that result in serious business losses. Many of these mistakes can be traced to the stubborn tendency of MNCs to underestimate the importance of issues of language and culture in doing business in China.

Daniel Chow, Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Chair in Business Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Restitution and Repatriation: Expectations and Reality (October 29, 2012)

World-renowned historian Lynn Nicholas delivered the keynote address entitled “Restitution and Repatriation: Expectations and Reality." Mrs. Nicholas is the author of The Rape of Europa, a groundbreaking history of the looting of art works during World War II that has become the fundamental account of this era. Her work exemplifies the best of historical research with relevance to restitutionary justice for victims of the Holocaust.

Lynn Nicholas, Author and Historian

Visiting Artist Series: Reginald Lawrence

Reginald Lawrence discussed the legal issues that he faced in his multi-dimensional career as a playwright, producer, director, and arts educator. He focused on the life cycle of a theatrical production from dealing with authors to hiring actors, directors, and crew to mounting the finished production. He shared his perspective on legal questions related to collaboration, intellectual property, and production credit.

Reginald Lawrence, Producer and Playwright

2012 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Michael Carroll (April 10, 2012)
  • Margaret Chon (March 13, 2012)
  • Gaia Bernstein (February 28, 2012)
  • Lawrence Sung (February 14, 2012)
  • John Duffy (January 31, 2012)


Arts Law Colloquium: “A Day in the Life of Sotheby’s Director of Compliance” (September 21, 2011)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Jane A. Levine spoke to students and attorneys at DePaul University College of Law and discussed her typical day as the Director of Compliance and Senior Vice President for Sotheby’s. Ms. Levine shared her experience with issues of regulatory enforcement, breach investigation, compliance monitoring, and substantive policy areas including, anti-corruption and anti-bribery, anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing; data protection and information privacy and security, identity theft prevention, due diligence with respect to provenance, cultural heritage issues, authenticity and title, and the auction process.

Jane A. Levine, Director of Compliance and Senior Vice President, Sotheby’s

Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) 2011 (August 11-12, 2011)

Co-sponsored by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, UC Berkeley School of Law; the Intellectual Property Law Program, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University; and the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology, Stanford Law School

DePaul University College of Law and CIPLIT® hosted the 11th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference on August 11-12, 2011. The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. The IPSC format is designed to facilitate free-ranging discussion and to help people hone their ideas.

Arts Law Colloquium: “Judicial Amnesia and the Historical Record in Nazi-Looted Art Litigation” (March 9, 2011)

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

Professor Jennifer Kreder discussed the wave of dismissals of claims to Nazi-looted art on technical grounds such that, with few praiseworthy exceptions, the courts of the United States no longer act as beacons of justice for the Holocaust restitution movement.

Jennifer Kreder, Professor of Law, Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law

National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition Final Round (February 25-26, 2011)

CIPLIT®, CAMCHL, the Appellate Moot Court Society and the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation (LCCHP) held the second annual National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition on February 25th and 26th at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago. Established by DePaul and LCCHP in 2010, this competition is the first in the nation to focus entirely on the field of cultural heritage law.

14th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecture & Luncheon: Peter Lee

Peter Lee presented on Patent Law and the Two Cultures

A half century ago, author and physicist C.P. Snow warned of a “gulf of mutual incomprehension” between the liberal arts and sciences. Snow’s “Two Cultures” thesis is particularly relevant to patent law, a realm where law and science intersect. Drawing on Snow’s framework, this Article addresses challenges that arise when lay judges must engage, understand, and ultimately pass judgment on complex technologies. It first argues that technological subject matter imposes significant cognitive burdens on generalist judges. It then explores the “cognitive miser” model whereby lay persons adopt heuristics and defer to expertise to limit their engagement with technology. Drawing from this psychological model, this Article then explores the unique role of formalism in patent doctrine. Advancing an information cost theory of Federal Circuit jurisprudence, this Article argues that formalistic patent doctrine mitigates the degree to which judges must engage technological subject matter. Formalism truncates difficult technical inquiries, thus helping to mediate the intersection of law and science.

The Article then identifies a countervailing trend in recent Supreme Court patent decisions. It is well-established that the Court has substantively narrowed patent rights. Less appreciated, however, is the Court’s systematic preference for contextually-sensitive, holistic standards over inquiry-truncating, formalistic rules. This so-called “holistic turn” promises to increase the degree to which lay judges must engage technologically complex subject matter. To address resulting cognitive burdens, this Article offers prescriptions for blending the economizing virtues of rules with the flexibility and contextual sensitivity of standards. It concludes by exploring the cultural differences of the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court as well as their implications for patent doctrine.

Peter Lee, Professor of Law; UC Davis School of Law


13th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecture & Luncheon: Arti Rai (October 20, 2010)

Arti Rai presented on “Innovation Policy in the Administrative State”

For more information, click here

Arti Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law; Duke Law School

Visiting Artist Series: Bernard Maisner (September 13, 2010)

Bernard Maisner - internationally renowned artist, calligrapher and fine stationer,- discussed legal issues impacting him as an artist and small businessman with Professor Margit Livingston.

Bernard Masiner, Master Calligrapher,

Patentable Subject Matter After the Supreme Court Bilski Opinion (July 1, 2010)

In Bilski v. Kappos, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed limitations on patentable subject matter in the context of a business method invention, analyzing a body of case law in such a way that some say could wrongly call into question the validity of many other patents and types of claims, while others argue it is not restrictive enough. A broad range of members of the patent community studied the decision, seeking to determine its effects on innovation, prosecution, licensing, and litigation. CIPLIT® and the Federal Communications Bar Association hosted a panel of experts who filed briefs in the case who discussed the implications of the opinion.

Intellectual Property Law and Jewish Law: A Comparative Perspective on Absolutism

In a provocative new book, Duke Law School Professor, David Lange, argues that the language of the First Amendment should be interpreted in absolute terms with heightened deference to the language of the text, as informed by the history of the text’s interpretation and application. He laments the reality that in lieu of this approach, the First Amendment law in the United States has been far more influenced by a balancing oriented ideology.

DePaul Law Professor, Roberta Kwall, builds upon Lange's thesis by showing how the "absolutist" and "balancing" ideologies are reflected respectively in the lawmaking characteristic of Orthodox and Conservative movements.

David Lange, Melvin G. Shimm Emeritus Professor of Law, Duke Law

Visiting Artist Series: Brian Dennehy

Brian Dennehy discussed the impact of the law and legal representation on his career as an internationally renowned stage, movie, and television actor with Professor Margit Livingston.

Brian Dennehy, Actor

2010 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Elizabeth Winston (November 3, 2010)
  • Andrew Torrance (October 13, 2010)
  • David Olson (September 29, 2010)
  • Michael Meurer (September 15, 2010)
  • Katherine Strandburg (September 1, 2010)


9th Annual CIPLIT Symposium: Cyberlaw 2.1: Legal Challenges of an Evolving Internet (October 15-16, 2009)

12th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Mark Lemley (October 15, 2009)

Mark Lemely presented on Irrelevant Confusion

Trademark law centers its analysis on consumer confusion. With some significant exceptions, the basic rule of trademark law is that a defendant’s use of a mark is illegal if it confuses a substantial number of consumers and not otherwise. As a general matter, this is the right rule. Trademark law is designed to facilitate the workings of modern markets by permitting producers to accurately communicate information about the quality of their products to buyers, and therefore to encourage them to invest in making quality products in circumstances in which that quality wouldn’t otherwise be apparent. If competitors can falsely mimic that information, they will confuse consumers, who won’t know whether they are in fact getting a high quality product and therefore won’t be willing to pay as much for that quality. I won’t pay as much for an iPod if I think there is a chance it is a cheap knock-off masquerading as an iPod.

The law of false advertising operates as an adjunct to trademark law. While trademark law prevents competitors from misrepresenting the source of their products by mimicking another’s brand name, the law of false advertising prevents false or misleading statements about the quality of one’s own or a competitor’s products. Like trademark law, false advertising law is designed to protect the integrity of markets by allowing consumers to rely on statements made by sellers.

Unfortunately, trademark law has taken the concept of confusion too far. Between 1930 and 1980, courts expanded the concept of confusion beyond confusion as to the source of a product to include the possibility that consumers are confused as to whether the trademark owner sponsors or is affiliated with the defendant’s goods. This expansion began for plausible reasons: consumers might be confused to their detriment in a variety of circumstances in which the plaintiff and the defendant do not actually compete directly. But sponsorship and affiliation confusion has taken on a life of its own, resulting in a large number of cases in which companies or individuals are prevented from doing things that might conceivably confuse consumers, but do not confuse consumers in any way that harms their decision-making process or that the law should care about.

For more information, click here.

Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law and Director of Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, Stanford University Law School

Protecting Your Marks In & From the New Top Level Domains (September 16, 2009)

This half-day seminar took a detailed, practical look at the process by which an applicant becomes a registry for a new top level domain, as well as what a brand owner can do to stop a new top level domain that comes too close to an existing brand.

Visiting Artist Series: Frank Catalano

One of the leading saxophone players of his time, Frank Catalano, along with attorney Gregg Gansmann and College of Law professors Ben Alba and Margit Livingston, gave a lunchtime presentation focusing on the attorney-artist relationship, as well as the legal issues Catalano has faced while building his music career.

Frank Catalano, Musician,

2009 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Christopher Sprigman (April 23, 2009)
  • Andrew Nelson (April 2, 2009)
  • Jeanne C. Fromer (March 19, 2009)
  • Dan L. Burk (February 26, 2009)
  • David L. Schwartz (February 12, 2009)
  • Sean B. Seymore (January 22, 2009)

2009 Hosier IP Scholars Series

  • Peter DiCola
  • John Shahar Dillbary
  • Jonathan Masur


11th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: David Nimmer and Neil Netanel (October 27, 2008)

David Nimmer and Neil Netanel presented on From Maimonides to Microsoft: The Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print

David Nimmer, Of Counsel, Irell & Manella LLP; Professor from Practice, UCLA School of Law
Neil Netanel, Professor, UCLA School of Law

8th Annual CIPLIT Symposium: Acquiring and Maintaining Collections of Cultural Objects: Challenges Confronting American Museums in the 21st Century (October 16, 2008)

Museums face increasingly difficult challenges in collecting cultural objects-challenges that must be dealt with in ways that are consistent with best practices. During this conference, leading experts examined the basic rules of nonprofit museum governance and how those rules apply to the growing challenge of collecting cultural property in light of new laws, court decisions and professional ethical guidelines; evolving museum practices and standards in collecting antiquities; sovereign immunity and immunity of art works; and the need for further standards for donor/collector museum relationships.

Visiting Artist Series: Zach Helm

Zach Helm, a graduate of The Theatre School at DePaul University, as well as an acclaimed film writer and director. He discussed the recent screenwriters' strike with Professors Alan Salzenstein and Margit Livingston.

Zach Helm, Screenwriter (“Stranger Than Fiction,” “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium”)

2008 Hosier IP Scholars Series

  • Amy Adler
  • Michael Carroll
  • John T. Cross
  • K.J. Greene
  • Raymond Ku
  • Lydia Loren
  • Michael Madison
  • Marc B. Shapiro
  • Lior Zemer

2008 Arts Law Colloquium Speakers

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

  • Robert Labate, “Intellectual Property Challenges for the Independent Filmmaker” (October 22, 2008)
  • Peter Strang, “Representing Music and Entertainment Clients" (October 2, 2008)
  • Alan Salzenstein, “Alternative Legal Career – Arts Management” (April 14, 2008)
  • Richard A. Rosen, “My Life as an Entertainment Lawyer”(March 24, 2008)
  • Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Program Manager, FBI Art Theft Program, “Law Enforcement and the Arts” (February 4, 2008)


Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in the Developing World (September 20, 2007)

Four DePaul University College of Law institutes and centers—the Health Law Institute, the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology, the Center for Public Interest Law and the International Human Rights Law Institute— hosted a roundtable discussion, cosponsored by MSF, that focused on the issue of access to essential medicines in the developing world. The discussion featured a presentation from MSF addressing the impact of patent rights on public health from the perspective of doctors in the field and responses from a panel of experts representing pharmaceutical industry and legal perspectives.

Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) 2007 (August 9-10, 2007)

DePaul University College of Law and CIPLIT® hosted the 7th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference on August 9-10, 2007. The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. The IPSC format is designed to facilitate free-ranging discussion and to help people hone their ideas.

7th Annual CIPLIT Symposium: Patents and Progress: Reflections in the Midst of Change (March 15-16, 2007)

Technological change, globalization and politics are each contributing to growing pressure for far-reaching changes to the U.S. patent system. During this conference, leading academics will present their views on the evolution and revolution in patent law.

For more information, click here.

10th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Peter Drahos (March 15, 2007)

Peter Drahos presented on “Society, Social Contract and the Patent Office.”

To see PowerPoint slides from this event, click here.

Peter Drahos, Professor and Director of the Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development, and Head of Program of the Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University

Visiting Artist Series: Austin Pendleton

Austin Pendleton with entertainment law attorney and DePaul alum, Todd Musburger and Professor Margit Livingston gave a presentation focusing on copyright protection for a director's staging of a play. The panel discussed this topic along with other the legal issues facing actors and directors.

Austin Pendleton, Actor

2007 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • David E. Adelman (April 23, 2007)
  • Eileen Kane (April 9, 2007)
  • Jonathan Franklin (February 12, 2007)
  • Joshua D. Sarnoff (January 29, 2007)

2007 Hosier IP Scholars Series

  • Susan Scafidi
  • Dr. Kim Treiger-Bar-Am
  • Rebecca Tushnet
  • Alfred C. Yen

2007 Arts Law Colloquium Speakers

Co-sponsored by DePaul Law's Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural Heritage Law (CAMCHL)

  • Todd W. Musberger, “Representing Media and Entertainment Clients” (November 12, 2007)
  • Gary T. Johnson, President, Chicago History Museum, “The Daily Challenges of Museum Law” (October 8, 2007)
  • Scott Hodes, Senior Counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, “Representing Artists, Collectors, and Dealers: A Lawyers’ Challenge” (September 17, 2007)


Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) 9th Annual Members Meeting (September 21, 2006)

On September 21, 2006, The Association of Patent Law Firms reviewed recent changes in the patent laws of several countries, in addition to the USA and Europe, in which the benefits of patenting internationally are realized. Knowledge of these changes helped formulate an effective patenting strategy to maximize the competitive advantage. The day also featured an address by the Honorable Elizabeth Laporte, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District California.

6th Annual CIPLIT Symposium: Intellectual Property Licensing by the Dominant Firm: Issues and Problems

To read articles from this symposium, click here.

2006 Hosier IP Scholars Series

  • Olufunmilayo B. Arewa
  • Kenneth Crews
  • Dr. Niva Elkin-Koren
  • Paul J. Heald
  • Gerald D. Hosier
  • Jessica Litman

Recent Developments In Intellectual Property Law (Evaluating a Country's Patent Potential) - A Global Perspective


9th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Hon. Frank H. Easterbook (April 15, 2005)

The Honorable Frank H. Easterbook presented on Contracts and Copyright

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Visiting Artist Series: Jeff Perry

Jeff Perry spoke on his multi-faceted career as an actor, director, producer and teacher, and some of the legal issues facing him as a celebrity and as the developer of new properties for stage, screen, and television. For more information, click here.

Jeff Perry, Founding Member, Steppenwolf Theatre Company

2005 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Keith Aoki
  • Brett Frischmann
  • Cynthia M. Ho
  • Jay P. Kesan, PhD
  • Adam Mossoff
  • Kristen Osenga

2005 Hosier IP Scholars Series

  • Wendy J. Gordon
  • Dr. Silke von Lewinski


The Inaugural Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) 2004

DePaul University College of Law and CIPLIT® hosted the 4th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference. The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. The IPSC format is designed to facilitate free-ranging discussion and to help people hone their ideas.

4th Annual CIPLIT Conference: Privacy and Identity: The Promise and Perils of a Technological Age (October 14-15, 2004)

The goal of the Symposium is to bring leading researchers in advanced technology together with leading thinkers from the law and policy arenas to consider the promise and perils that recent and upcoming technological innovations hold for privacy.

The Symposium will feature two keynote presentations, three panels of invited speakers, and parallel sessions of contributed papers and works-in-progress on privacy-related technical, legal, and policy-related topics. Each panel will include technical researchers and experts on law and policy related to a particular technology. Technical speakers will seek to educate a diverse audience on the “basics” of the technology and to point out the promise or peril that the technology holds for privacy. Speakers with expertise in law and policy will then respond with analysis of the legal and societal ramifications of the technology. Speakers will then engage with one another and with conference attendees about how to forge solutions to privacy concerns.

For more information, including speakers and topics, click here.

8th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Pamela Samuelson (October 14, 2004)

Professor Pamela Samuelson presented on Is Privacy Possible in Pervasive Computing Environment?

For more information, click here.

Pamela Samuelson, Chancellor's Professor, University of California Boalt Hall School of Law; Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology

2004 Edward D. Manzo Scholars in Patent Law

  • Andrew Chin, University of North Carolina School of Law
  • Rochelle Dreyfuss, New York University
  • Graeme Dinwoodie, CIPLIT Distinguished Senior Scholar; Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, University of Oxford
  • Timothy Holbrook, Emory University School of Law
  • Michael Meurer, Boston University School of Law


3rd Annual CIPLIT Conference: Ownership and Control in the Academic World: Intellectual Property Issues Facing Universities and Researchers (October 15-16, 2003)

7th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Hon. Richard A. Posner (October 15, 2003)

Hon. Richard A. Posner, U.S. Courts of Appeals, 7th Circuit

6th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: David Nimmer (April 3, 2003)

David Nimmer presented on The Moral Imperative Against Academic Plagiarism (Without a Moral Right Against Reverse Passing Off)

David Nimmer, Of Counsel, Irell & Manella, LLP


2nd Annual CIPLIT Conference: The Many Faces of Authorship: Legal and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (April 12, 2002)

To read articles about this event, click here

5th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Jane C. Ginsburg (April 12, 2002)

Jane C. Ginsburg presented on The Concept Of Authorship In Comparative Copyright Law

Jane C. Ginsburg, Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law, Columbia Law School


The Inaugural Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) 2001 (August 9-10, 2001)

DePaul University College of Law and CIPLIT® hosted the 1st Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference on August 9-10, 2001. The IP Scholars Conference brings together intellectual property scholars to present their works-in-progress in order to benefit from the critique of colleagues. The IPSC format is designed to facilitate free-ranging discussion and to help people hone their ideas.

1st Annual CIPLIT Conference: Recent Patent Rules: Implementation, Litigation and More

4th Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Q. Todd Dickinson

Q. Todd Dickinson, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office; former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property


3rd Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: J. Thomas McCarthy

J. Thomas McCarthy, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco


2nd Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Richard Masur and John Lavely

Richard Masur, actor and former President of the Screen Actors Guild
John Lavely, Partner, Lavely & Singer


1st Annual Niro Scavone Haller & Niro Distinguished Intellectual Property Lecturer & Luncheon: Hon. Randall Rader

Hon. Randall Rader, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit