There is an interesting virtual symposium scheduled for this Friday. It is being hosted by SMU Dedman School of Law, the FedCircuit Blog, and the Tsai Center for Law, Science, and Innovation.
The three topics look really interesting.
Panel I: The Rise of the Western District of Texas: Forum Selling and Forum Shopping in Patent Trial Courts; Or, the Failure of T.C. Heartland
Panel II: Arthrex, the PTAB, and the USPTO Director’s New (Temporary?) Authority over Patent Opposition Proceedings
Panel III: The Federal Circuit: Is Its Exclusive Jurisdiction Still Needed Given the Supreme Court’s Renewed Interest in Resolving Disputes over Patent Law?
More details and registration information are available at this [LINK].
I thought the third panel looked particularly intriguing. That panel is focused on the impact of the Supreme Court in patent law and whether there is a continuing necessity for the Federal Circuit. It would seem that there are some other factors at play, as well, when it comes to whether there is a continuing necessity for the Federal Circuit. For example, given the Federal Circuit’s ineptitude in framing a workable rule for §101 that fosters innovation in today’s information economy, is the CAFC really serving the purpose it was designed for? The Federal Circuit hasn’t voted to take a patent case en banc in over three years — again, is it really serving the purpose it was designed for? The Federal Circuit has to rely heavily on Rule 36 Judgments to dispose of its docket of cases. Would it be better to distribute that workload of cases across the other circuits so that the case law could be developed with more written opinions? (I’m just being a gadfly with these questions; but, I do see them as significant failures by the court in recent years.)