When it comes to the real impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex, the jury is still out. Some say it will lead to a fundamental change in how patents are obtained and litigated, while others say not much will really change. This disagreement requires a thoughtful discussion of how companies will need to adapt to protect their current intellectual property portfolios and to adjust their strategies moving forward.
In the second installment of Foley’s Patent Nation Web Conference Series, we considered:
- What impact will the Court’s decision have on inventors, businesses, and innovators in the United States?
- Will it now be harder for start-up companies and inventors to obtain venture capital funding?
- What are the financial implications?
- Will the decision help established companies avoid competition?
- Will KSR affect the rate of innovation? If so, will it increase or decrease?
- How are the courts reacting to the new standard established by KSR?
- What will be the effect of KSR on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s workload and turnaround time?
Speakers:
- Thomas Elkind, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, Foley
- Robert Glance, Associate General Counsel, Fannie Mae
- Roger Kitterman, Associate Director, Center for Innovative Ventures, Partners HealthCare
- Curtis Rose, Assistant General Counsel, Hewlett-Packard Company
Additional Program in this Web Conference Series include:
- Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Patent Nation: Real or Hype? Business and Litigation Impact of Patent Reform - Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Patent Nation: Jon W. Dudas on the New USPTO Claims & Continuations Rules
People
Related Insights
21 March 2025
IP Litigation Current
Federal Circuit Opens the Door to Additional Domestic Industry Investment: “Ordinary Importer” No Longer
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B).
21 March 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Federal Court Rejects FCA’s “65%-100%” Language as Insufficient to Constitute the Necessary Quantity Term in a Requirements Contract—A Win for Suppliers
A recent federal court decision marks an important win for automotive suppliers in the ongoing debate over what constitutes a valid requirements contract under Michigan law following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in MSSN, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co. (2023).
27 April 2025
Events
Innovative Payment Strategies in Proton Therapy: Addressing Challenges and Driving Value
Foley partner Kinal Patel is speaking at the 2025 National Proton Conference in a panel titled “Innovative Payment Strategies in Proton Therapy: Addressing Challenges and Driving Value” on April 27.