Intellectual Property

Local Patent Rules - Certainty and Efficiency or a Crazy Quilt of Substantive Law?

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

More than a decade ago, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California broke new ground by adopting the first local patent rules. Since 2001, at least twenty other district courts have adopted local patent rules, including some of the most prominent districts for litigating patent cases—the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of New Jersey. Notably, however, the two well-known patent litigation “rocket dockets” have not adopted such rules—the Eastern District of Virginia and the Western District of Wisconsin... [Read more!]

The Supreme Court Rules on Congress's Power to Grant Copyrights to Public Domain Works � Golan v. Holder - Podcast

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Adam Mossoff, Christopher Newman, David S. Olson, Dean A. Reuter

On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power under the Patent and Copyright Clause to grant copyrights to foreign authors for their works that had been in the public domain in the United States, often for decades. Congress had granted these copyrights as part of the enabling legislation pursuant to the 1994 round of the GATT agreements, according to which the U.S. was arguably required to grant copyrights to foreign authors if the authors’ works were still in copyright in their home countries.

Our IP experts will discuss the case and whether the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution should allow granting copyrights to existing, public domain works, and more generally, what limitations the IP Clause and the First Amendment place on Congress when it passes IP laws. They will also discuss how the challenged law in Golanaffects incentives to create and distribute inventive and artistic works, and what type of future IP laws Congress might pass given the license granted it by the Court in this case. Featuring Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Christopher Newman of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. David Olson of Boston College Law School; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Will Americans Continue to Invent? - Podcast

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein, F. Scott Kieff, David S. Olson, Dean A. Reuter

United States patent law has traditionally authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. But the America Invents Act replaced the "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty and obviousness. Does this change rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country and shift the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the change Constitutional? Featuring Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Hot News: The "Hot-News" Doctrine Is Hot Again! Or Is It?

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

David L. Applegate, Ryan Schermerhorn

Copyright law, like contract law, is deceptively complex. Just as the familiar elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration can give rise to endless disputes not easily resolved, the seemingly simple notion that an author has a time-limited monopoly on rights to a particular work of authorship gives rise to many questions. Given constantly-changing technology for fixing works of original expression in tangible media, ever-evolving means of copying and piracy, and repeated revisions to U.S. copyright law, both the courts and creators have had a difficult time understanding core concepts and keeping up with how the law is applied. Nowhere is this difficulty more apparent than in the Second Circuit’s attempts to keep the law of copyright straight in the area of “hot news.” [Read more!]

IP and Parallel Importation - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

F. Scott Kieff, David S. Olson, David B. Salmons, Sherwin Siy, Randall R. Rader

The Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted this panel on "IP and Parallel Importation—Should the U.S., Through IP Laws and Other Means, Protect Businesses from “Gray Goods” Imported Without Manufacturers’ Authorization?" on Thursday, November 10, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. This panel featured Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; Mr. David Salmons of Bingham McCutchen LLP; Mr. Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge; and Judge Randall R. Rader of the U. S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit as the moderator.

The Google Review: Regulation of Search Results and More - Event Audio/Video

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Thomas O. Barnett, James Grimmelmann, Charles F. "Rick" Rule, Berin Szoka, Ronald A. Cass

Google’s business practices are currently under review by the Federal Trade Commission, several state Attorneys General, and the European Commission. Competitors and critics assert that the Google search engine, and its search engine’s results, should be reviewed and potentially regulated by government authorities. Google and its supporters assert that it is merely trying to provide the best answers for consumers. In the fast moving technology space, what role -- if any -- should antitrust authorities play in policing search engine methodology and results? How should regulators respond to allegations of “unfairness?” Most recently, the government’s interest in Google has expanded to include questions about its proposed acquisition of Motorola – what is the proper governmental role here? [Watch or listen now!]

Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

The September 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Film Piracy and the Pirate Bay Cases

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

John G. Malcolm

I thought I’d talk a little bit about the extent of movie piracy and something about what’s going on in the fight against piracy. A lot of the action is now taking place internationally. But before doing that, I thought I’d talk a little bit about the movie industry and what’s at stake here...

Healthcare Reform's Impact on Drug Patents

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Adam Mossoff

Well, I want to thank you, Dean Maddox, and to thank the Federalist Society here at George Washington for inviting me to talk about drug patents. It’s really a privilege debating John Duffy, whom I’ve been reading for a long time. I’m a big admirer of his work, and I have to confess, I feel a bit like a welterweight getting into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson. So, Professor Duffy, as long as you promise not to bite off my ear, I think we’re going to have some fun here...

The America Invents Act: First to File versus First to Invent? - Podcast

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Timothy Holbrook, F. Scott Kieff, Adam Mossoff, David S. Olson, David L. Applegate

Since the first U. S. patent statute in 1790, United States patent law has authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. Currently under consideration as S. 23 and H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act will substantially change the American patent system by eliminating this uniquely American approach in securing property rights in inventions to only their first and true inventors. Section 2 in the Senate (S.23) and the House (H.R. 1249) bills will replace the current “first-to-invent” system with the “first to file” system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Does the proposed change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country by shifting the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect of this proposed change on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the proposed change even Constitutional? These and other topics are debated and discussed among a panel of law professors moderated by an experienced practitioner. Featuring Prof. Timothy Holbrook of Emory University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and David L. Applegate of Williams Montgomery & John LTD as the moderator.

The First Amendment Online: Search, Privacy & Personalization - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein, James Grimmelmann, Jonathan Masur, Berin Szoka, Diane P. Wood, Trevor K. Copeland

Congress is aflutter with online privacy bills, while arguments for regulating search engines, social networks and other online service providers are gaining traction with consumer protection and competition agencies. Yet policymakers seem to have given little attention to how interventions to protect privacy or competition will affect speech online. Our expert panel will discuss how the First Amendment applies to search engines and the personalization of online services, content and advertising based on user data—once abstract questions that are increasingly becoming central to our culture and economy. Featuring Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University School of Law; Prof. James Grimmelman of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School; Prof. Jonathan Masur of the University of Chicago Law School; Mr. Berin Szoka of TechFreedom; and JudgeDiane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Trevor K. Copeland of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione.

Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

The June 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Prometheus Unbound: The Federal Circuit Responds to Bilski

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

David L. Applegate

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wasted little time in responding with a second decision in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., v. Mayo Collaborative Services. On remand from the Supreme Court, the threshold question for the Federal Circuit in Prometheus was whether the patents in suit claimed patentable subject matter in view of Bilski’s “clarification” of Section 101 jurisprudence. In simple terms, as on initial appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the Prometheus claims were patent eligible...

Patent Enforcement in the 21st Century - Event Audio

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Erik P. Belt, Jerry Cohen, F. Scott Kieff, Michael J. Meurer, David S. Olson, Gregory D. Cote

This panel will explore the long-standing debate over remedies for patent infringement and whether and how we should reform the patent system to ensure it is functioning to promote efficient investment in innovation. From questions about granting and enforcing injunctions after eBay v. MercExchange and TiVo v. EchoStar, to the proper standards for calculating damages after the ResQnet cases regarding use of prior licenses in determining reasonable royalty rates and the Uniloc v. Microsoftdecision abandoning the so-called 25% rule, our panel of experts will discuss both the legal aspects of the current debates as well as their implications and their place in the broader debate over the economic role of patents. Featuring Mr. Erik P. Belt of McCarter & English, LLP; Mr. Jerry Cohen of Burns & Levinson LLP; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of George Washington University Law School; Prof. Michael Meurer of Boston University School of Law; and Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Gregory D. Cote of McCarter & English LLP.

Just a Minor Fix in Patent Reform? Qui Tam Actions and the False Marking Statute - Podcast

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EST

Trevor K. Copeland, Arthur Gollwitzer III, Elizabeth I. Winston, Adam Mossoff

The false marking statute of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 292) prohibits marking as “patented” any product that is not patented. Section 292 also gives individuals the right to bring a qui tam action and to collect statutory damages up to $500 for each falsely marked product. Although once rarely invoked, the qui tam provision is increasingly being used by plaintiffs against large manufacturers of patented and formerly patented products. The number of qui tam lawsuits has exploded in the past couple years, and there is now a debate raging among lawyers and commentators as to whether the qui tam provision still serves its original function of punishing firms who improperly seek to squelch both free trade and the public domain by false claiming a product or service as patented. Congress is considering various ways of amending or even eliminating the qui tam provision as part of the patent reform legislation that is currently being debated on the Hill. Complicating matters, in early March 2011, a federal district court in Ohio held that the qui tam provision is unconstitutional, violating the Take Care Clause in Article II, § 3. This panel discusses the current state of play and what changes, if any, should be made to the qui tam provision of the false marking statute. Featuring Mr. Trevor K. Copeland of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer of Floyd & Buss LLP; Prof. Elizabeth I. Winston of Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America; and Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law as the moderator.

Engage Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2010

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

The December 2010 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

In re Bilski: Business Method Patents Resolved? Not Likely

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

David L. Applegate

The day before Halloween 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a much-anticipated en banc decision in the case of In re Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw, but it was difficult to tell whether it was a trick or a treat. In that appeal from a final decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the Federal Circuit held that a claimed invention of a method for hedging the “consumption risks” associated with a commodity sold at a fixed price—in short, a method for hedging commodities—was not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Section 101”). The Federal Circuit therefore sustained the examiner’s rejection of all eleven claims of Bilski’s and Warsaw’s U.S. Patent Application, Serial No. 08/833,892, without ever determining whether the claimed invention was novel, useful, or nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (“Sections 102 and 103").

How the "New GM" Can Steal from Toyota

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Adam Mossoff

“What is good for General Motors is good for the nation.” This iconic statement by Charles (“Engine Charlie”) Wilson, the then-U.S. Secretary of Defense and former CEO of GM has long been condemned as an exemplar of corporate hubris. But last summer it achieved something even more important: It became true. When GM moved out of bankruptcy in July 2009, the federal government took a 60.8% ownership stake in this classic American automobile manufacturing company.

Minimizing Risk and Maximizing Reward: IP as Regulatory Policy or Property Right? - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein, Brett M. Frischmann, Mark F. Schultz, Gigi B. Sohn, Paul R. Michel
The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted this panel discussion on "Minimizing Risk and Maximizing Reward: IP as Regulatory Policy or Property Right?" at the 2010 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 18, 2010. Panelists included Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University School of Law; Prof. Brett M. Frischmann of Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Prof. Mark F. Schultz of Southern Illinois University School of Law; Prof. Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge; and Judge Paul R. Michel (ret.), formerly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as the moderator.

Engage Volume 11, Issue 2, September 2010

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EST

The September 2010 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

The Supreme Court Rules on Congress's Power to Grant Copyrights to Public Domain Works � Golan v. Holder

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Adam Mossoff, Christopher Newman, David S. Olson

Stopping Online Piracy: Where Should We Draw the Line?

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Larry Downes, Steven M. Tepp

SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, is a bill before the U.S. Congress that is designed to expand the authority of U.S. law enforcement to police and stop online trafficking in copyrighted material. But what are the exact contours of the government's authority under the proposed legislation? Under what circumstances can the government shut down, or order the shut down, of a website? Why has the bill produced so much controversy? Who are the winners and losers if the bill is enacted? These and other questions will be discussed on our Teleforum.

Will Americans Continue to Invent?

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein, F. Scott Kieff, David S. Olson

The Google Review: Regulation of Search Results and More

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Thomas O. Barnett, James Grimmelmann, Charles F. "Rick" Rule, Berin Szoka

The First Amendment Online: Search, Privacy & Personalization

Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein, James Grimmelmann, Jonathan Masur, Berin Szoka, Diane P. Wood

Patent Enforcement in the 21st Century

Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 EST

F. Scott Kieff, Michael J. Meurer, David S. Olson, Erik P. Belt, Jerry Cohen

Speakers:

Professor F. Scott Kieff, George Washington University Law School
Erik P. Belt, McCarter & English, LLP
Jerry Cohen, Esq., Burns & Levinson LLP
Professor Michael Meurer, Boston University School of Law
Professor David S. Olson (Moderator), Boston College Law School

2010 National Lawyers Convention

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Barry E. Carter, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Patrick McSweeney, Antonin Scalia, Dennis G. Jacobs, Marvin Ammori, Paul S. Atkins, John S. Baker, Jr., Randy E. Barnett, Sara Sun Beale, Bradford A. Berenson, Lillian R. BeVier, Carl T. Bogus, James Bopp Jr., Steven G. Calabresi, Michael A. Carvin, Ronald A. Cass, Michael Chertoff, Roger Clegg, Robert D. Cooter, R. Ted Cruz, Frank H. Easterbrook, John C. Eastman, Richard A. Epstein, William N. Eskridge, Jr., David French, Charles Fried, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Gerhardt, C. Boyden Gray, Thomas W. Hazlett, Christine Jolls, Douglas T. Kendall, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Edwin Meese III, Thomas W. Merrill, Paul R. Michel, John O. McGinnis, Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Michael S. Paulsen, Thomas R. Phillips, A. Raymond Randolph, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Mark F. Schultz, Bradley A. Smith, Paul M. Smith, Margaret D. Stock, Thomas J. Tauke, Clifford W. Taylor, Mark Tushnet, Eugene Volokh, Howard Waltzman, Ruth J. Wedgwood, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Mitch McConnell, Noah D. Bookbinder, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Brett M. Frischmann, Gigi B. Sohn, Kris W. Kobach, James C. Ho, William H. Pryor Jr., Joel R. Reidenberg, Diane S. Sykes, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Edith H. Jones, Ronald M. Levin, Victoria A. Lipnic, Roger Martella Jr., Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Roger Pilon, Rena I. Steinzor, Sarah B. Teslik, Peter J. Wallison, Arthur E. Wilmarth, John C. Yoo, Michael Barone, Michael S. Lee, Michael J. Madigan, Lanny J. Davis, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Jan Crawford, Carlos T. Bea, Kim Bobo, Shawn H. Chang, Thomas M. Hardiman, Jordan Lorence, Jeffrey P. Mahoney, Robert M. McDowell, Margaret E. McGuinness, Brandon Rees, David B. Sentelle, Jerry E. Smith, David Stras, Jeffrey S. Sutton, C. Gibson Vance, Pete Williams, Michael R. Pence, Daniel E. Lungren, Jeffrey Rosen

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 18 through Saturday, November 20 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 18 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

Intellectual Property's Impact on Jobs and the Global Economy

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 EST

James Pooley, Marybeth Peters, Jennifer Garcia, Ben Cockerham, Sam D'Amico, Merrill Matthews, Andrew Keen, Adam Mossoff, Joshua Sarnoff, Mark F. Schultz, Robert Goodlatte, Andrew Klavan, Patrick Ross, Nam D. Pham, Mark T. Esper, Victor Tieku, Stephen Siwek, Tom Giovanetti The Institute for Policy Innovation is holding it's Fifth Annual World Intellectual Property Day Forum on April 26 at the Reserve Officers Association Headquarters Minuteman Memorial Building in Washington, DC. There is no cost to attend this event, but Federalist Society members can receive up to 3 credits of CLE for only $50 by registering through the Federalist Society web site. All other registrants should RSVP for this event by contacting Erin Humiston at the Institute for Policy Innovation at 972-874-5139 or erin@ipi.org.

The Proper Role of Law in Protecting Intellecutal Property in the Knowledge Economy

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 EST

Steven Hetcher, Michael J. Meurer

Speakers:

Professor Steven Hetcher, Vanderbilt Law
Professor Michael Meurer, Boston University Law
Professor Sarah Salter, New England Law, (Moderator)

The Google Books Settlement

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein

Speaker:

Prof. Richard A. Epstein, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Visiting Professor of Law, New York University Law School
Jonathan M. Jacobson, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Prof. Scott Hemphill, Columbia Law

2009 National Lawyers Convention

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Guido Calabresi, Frank H. Easterbrook, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Paul S. Atkins, Randy E. Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, Linda Chavez, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cu�llar, Susan E. Dudley, Miguel Estrada, Richard A. Epstein, Steve Forbes, Maurice R. Greenberg, Michael S. Greve, Oona Hathaway, Peter N. Kirsanow, David G. Leitch, Michael W. McConnell, Burt Neuborne, Jeremy A. Rabkin, A. Raymond Randolph, Theodore M. Shaw, Stephen Bainbridge, Carlos T. Bea, Stephanie R. Breslow, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Alan E. Brownstein, Ronald A. Cass, John C. Eastman, C. Boyden Gray, Lisa Heinzerling, Edith H. Jones, David A. Katz, Brett M. Kavanaugh, F. Scott Kieff, Michael Livermore, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Paul G. Mahoney, Robert D. McTeer, Michael J. Meurer, Geoffrey P. Miller, Alan B. Morrison, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Michael Paese, Harvey L. Pitt, William H. Pryor Jr., Lucas "Scot" A. Powe Jr., Jamin Ben Raskin, Daniel B. Ravicher, Andrew J. Redleaf, Roberta Romano, David B. Sentelle, Catherine M. Sharkey, Amity Shlaes, Damon A. Silvers, Jerry E. Smith, Gigi B. Sohn, Ilya Somin, Bret Stephens, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Diane S. Sykes, Daniel E. Troy, J.W. Verret, Steven M.H. Wallman, John P. Walters, W. Bradley Wendel, Shirley J. Wilcher, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Stephen F. Williams, Todd J. Zywicki, John A. Allison, John S. Baker, Jr., Jennifer Walker Elrod, Malcolm M. Feeley, Thomas W. Hazlett, Roderick M. Hills Jr., Brian H. Hook, Daryl Joseffer, Annette L. Nazareth, Aryeh Neier, Jed Rubenfeld, Robert P. Young, Jr., David Zaring, Mark R. Levin, Thomas M. Hardiman, John F. Manning, William Black, Cornish F. Hitchcock, Steven J. Law, Harold Meyerson, Alex J. Pollock, Andrew L. Stern, Michael B. Mukasey, David Berenbaum, Robert M. McDowell, Mark F. Schultz, David M. McIntosh, Kyle E. McSlarrow, Seton Motley, Laura M. Olson, Marvin Ammori

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 12 through Saturday, November 14 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "The Federal Government's Economic Role in our Constitutional System." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 12 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

Publisher and Creator Rights in the Digital Age

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 EST

Kenneth W. Starr, Dennis G. Jacobs, William Patry

Speakers:

Dean Kenneth W. Starr, Pepperdine University School of Law
William Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel, Google
The Honorable Dennis Jacobs, United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (moderator)

2007 National Lawyers Convention

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Randy E. Barnett, Robert H. Bork, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Jamie Gorelick, Gail Heriot, Neal K. Katyal, Alex Kozinski, Andrew C. McCarthy, Michael W. McConnell, Edwin Meese III, Theodore B. Olson, Walter K. Olson, Stephen Reinhardt, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Alan Sekulow, Nadine Strossen, George J. Terwilliger III, David C. Vladeck, Eugene Volokh, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Audi, John S. Baker, Jr., Michael Barone, Bob Barr, Carlos T. Bea, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Janice Rogers Brown, James S. Burling, Steven G. Calabresi, Lawrence W. Casey, Ronald A. Cass, Brett M. Kavanaugh This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Federalist Society and on November 15-17 we will be celebrating this milestone during our Annual National Lawyers Convention. The theme for this year's convention is "Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism." In addition to the numerous panels containing noted legal experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, The convention will also feature the Seventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, to be delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. The highlight of the convention will be the 25th Anniversary Gala, attended by many more special guests, which will be held in the Main Hall of Washington, DC's Union Station.
[Register now!]

How Should the Courts Interpret Split Decisions?

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Supreme Court occasionally renders plurality opinions, which may involve 4-1-4 decisions or any number of other formulations of justices where no clear majority on particular issues emerges. These plurality opinions often address significant issues yet, due to the lack of a clear majority, are difficult for the lower courts, the regulated community, and practitioners to interpret and apply. On June 21, the Federalist Society presented a live audiocast of a panel of experts who discussed these issues and more. [Click here to listen to a replay of this event]