The Symposium will bring together scholars, practitioners, and experts with firsthand experience translating legal theory into legal practice in order to explore questions such as:
- Given current IP doctrines, how do we go about proving everything from protectability to scope to infringement to damages?
- When considering the range of types of evidence, including expert testimony, survey evidence, and economic evidence, which are best suited to proving particular issues in IP?
- How do decisions depend on the forum or audience we have in mind, whether it be a judge, a jury, an administrative examiner, or a policymaker?
This undertaking requires us to take substantive doctrine as fixed to the maximum extent possible, so unlike most other IP law conferences, we will assume that the law is both accurate and functional.
May 16 9:00-10:00 BREAKFAST
10:00-10:15 Opening Remarks
10:15-11:15 Proving the Creative Contribution: How can you show what it means to contribute sufficient creativity for a work to be protected by intellectual property?
Moderator: Professor Jeanne Fromer (@JeanneFromer)
Douglas Cawley (McKool Smith) Stephen Coates (Amazon) (@trademarkninja) Pamela Samuelson (Berkeley) (@PamelaSamuelson)
11:15-12:15 Keynote - Fair Use: A Ramble Through the Bramble: Judge Pierre Leval, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1:15-2:15 Proving Consumer Perception: What are the best ways to test what consumers and users perceive about a work and how it is being positioned in the market?
Moderator: Professor Barton Beebe
David Bernstein (Debevoise & Plimpton) Graeme Dinwoodie (Chicago-Kent College of Law) (@GraemeBD) Johanna Schmitt (Kirkland & Ellis)
2:30-3:30 Proving Markets: What are the best ways to approach market definitions, demands, and harms?
Moderator: Professor Scott Hemphill
Dale Cendali (Kirkland & Ellis) Rahul Guha (Cornerstone Research) Mark McKenna (Notre Dame Law School) (@markpmckenna)
3:30-4:30 Proving Damages: What are the most effective ways to calculate and apportion damages?
Moderator: Professor Chris Sprigman (@CJSprigman)
Sarah Burstein (University of Oklahoma College of Law) (@design_law) John Desmarais (‘88) (Desmarais LLP) Kristelia Garcia (Colorado Law) (@kristelia)
4:30-6:00 Please join us for a reception extending the discussions of the first day.
May 17 9:00-9:30 BREAKFAST
9:30-10:30 Proving Similarity: Expert witnesses from both sides of the Blurred Lines case discuss how to analyze and communicate similarities and differences of creative works, as well as the role that technology plays in defining the works to be compared.
Moderator: Professor Joseph Fishman (Vanderbilt Law School) (@jpfishman)
Judith Finell (Judith Finell Music Services) Sandy Wilbur (Musiodata)
10:30-11:30 Proving Good/Bad Faith and Intent: How can lawyers determine what drives creators and accused appropriators and can that be communicated to fact finders?
Moderator: Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss
Jake Linford (Florida State University) (@LinfordInfo) Benjamin Marks (‘97) (Weil) Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Texas A&M) (@emptydoors)
11:45-12:30 Proving the Need for Reform: How are issues identified as ‘ripe’ for reform, and what is the best way to shape the reform process in the area of intellectual property?
Moderator: Professor Jason Schultz (@Lawgeek)
Amy Kapczynski (Yale Law School) (@akapczynski) David Kappos (Cravath, Swaine & Moore) Chris Lewis (Public Knowledge) (@ChrisJ_Lewis)
12:30-1:30 Keynote: Judge Raymond Chen (‘94), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit