Letter from the Chair

• Publication year: 2014
• Author: Andrew W. Stroud

Letter from the Chair

Andrew W. Stroud

Hanson Bridgett LLP

THE RESULTS ARE IN

In my last letter I noted that several intellectual property cases were on the Supreme Court's docket for this term, showing the increasing importance of intellectual property, not only as a practice area, but in our daily lives. Well, the term has now concluded and 'the results are in.' I am sure many hours will be spent attempting to discern new patterns in the Court's thinking that will assist IP practitioners in the next few years. I am willing to add my two cents to what has been and will be written.

As you know, each year the IP Section sends a delegation to Washington D.C. to meet with leaders at the USPTO and Copyright Office, as well as legislative leaders. The delegation does not go to lobby but to reinforce our relationship with individuals and offices so critical to our practice.

However, this year's trip included a stop that had never been included before. The delegation was invited to meet Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in Chambers and attend a non-argument session before the Court as his guests. Justice Kennedy was a gracious host. He spent almost half an hour with the delegation discussing intellectual property issues and reminiscing about his experiences on the Court and in his early years in practice in Sacramento. As to intellectual property, Justice Kennedy commented that he does not recall hearing that term used when he was in law school. He certainly remembered courses being offered in copyrights and patents but not an area of study in intellectual property per se. In addition, Justice Kennedy mentioned the tremendous growth that has taken place at the USPTO, with the addition of hundreds of new examiners through the past decade. Clearly, Justice Kennedy was seeing and experiencing the intellectual property revolution in his job, just like the rest of us.

What also became clear during our meeting with Justice Kennedy was that the Supreme Court was not interested in being a vanguard for change as to the application of intellectual property laws to new technologies. Instead, the Supreme Court is interested in applying the law as written to the technology as presented. I am not saying that the Supreme Court is out of touch with technology but that it is in touch with the law.

Whenever I am faced with a legal problem that is unique or unfamiliar, I try not to think about what I don't know. Instead, I focus on what I do know. If I can break a legal problem down into its...