The Drug Innovation Paradox: Matching Incentives to Market Realities

The hardest things are often the most important things. That’s one of the implicit justifications for the intellectual property system. If we want people to do the hard and important work of researching, developing, and commercializing game-changing innovations, then we need to secure the fruits of their labor with property rights.

In her forthcoming paper, The Drug Innovation Paradox,[1] Professor Erika Lietzan of the University of Missouri School of Law gives reason to question whether our IP and regulatory system is properly encouraging pharmaceutical innovators to work on the most important, and hardest, questions.

This paper, produced while Prof. Lietzan was a CPIP Edison Innovation Fellow, considers a paradox. Some of the biggest health challenges, the most important things, are indeed the hardest things. Therapies for diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s demand research, development, and testing that takes longer. Unfortunately, the longer something takes to develop, the shorter the term of exclusivity under the IP system, and thus the less secure the investment.

The drug innovation paradox is that the hardest and most important cures are often the ones most poorly supported by our IP system.

Combining several different data sources for the first time, Prof. Lietzan presents comprehensive statistical findings that bring the extent of the drug innovation paradox into focus. The implications for innovation policy are profound, especially if we wish to see groundbreaking new therapies that are inherently more difficult to develop.

Incentives are particularly important in the pharmaceutical industry, where the average cost of developing an approved new medicine is over two billion dollars.[2] Drugmakers would hardly invest so much without the promise of exclusivity once the medicine goes to market. However, the period of exclusivity—the incentive—we give to drugmakers depends upon how long it takes them to bring a new medicine to the market. The more time they spend on developing a new medicine, the less reward they receive for their troubles by way of a shorter patent term.

In the United States, it takes 3.5 years on average for a patent to issue, and in many industries, patent owners thus might expect to enjoy around 16.5 years of clear market exclusivity.[3] However, things are very different in the pharmaceutical industry, where the safety and efficacy of a new drug has to be proven before it can be marketed. Years of preclinical testing and clinical trials run down the patent term clock while a drugmaker awaits approval. Congress has instituted measures to restore a portion of the time lost, but the fact remains that longer development programs result in shorter periods of exclusivity.

Pouring over the data going back to 1984, Prof. Lietzan examines the variables that play a role in perpetuating the drug innovation paradox. Critically, she notes that many of the factors that consistently lead to longer development programs—including the drug, disease, and endpoints to be met—are simply beyond a drugmaker’s control. Of course, it is impossible to say for certain what drugs were never invented because the incentives were not there. But the data does give us an accurate sense of how many years spent in development are lost when the patent expires.

For example, Prof Lietzan breaks down the data with respect to the category of therapy being developed. As the following figure shows, the average length of the clinical testing period for some therapeutic categories ranges from about 3 to 9 years:

It is important to note that this lengthy testing period represents only one part of a development program, and the preclinical testing period has to be taken into account as well. Prof. Lietzan estimates that the average preclinical testing period for new drugs is 5.61 years. It is easy to see how the majority of the patent term for drugs that fall into certain therapeutic categories may be gone before the drug even enters the market.

The danger of the drug innovation paradox is that we may be under-incentivizing pharmaceutical research and development for drugs that are inherently more difficult to develop. The next great breakthrough treatment for difficult-to-treat diseases like cancer or multiple sclerosis may never be developed unless the incentives are there to reward drugmakers for taking the risk to develop the treatments in the first place. The data collected by Prof. Lietzan shows us just how time-consuming these endeavors can be, and they suggest that we should break the paradox if we hope to have even greater drug innovation.

CPIP is pleased to once again have Prof. Lietzan as a CPIP Edison Innovation Fellow for 2017 – 2018. We look forward to supporting more of her groundbreaking work on this difficult, but absolutely important, issue.


[1] Erika F. Lietzan, The Drug Innovation Paradox, 83 Mo. L. Rev. ___ (2018), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=2948604.

[2] See Joseph A. DiMasi et al., Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: New Estimates of R&D Costs, 47 J. Health Econ. 20 (2016) (estimating average total pre-approval cost of approved new compound at $2.558 billion in 2013 dollars), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26928437.

[3] See Mark Schultz & Kevin Madigan, The Long Wait for Innovation: The Global Patent Pendency Problem (Ctr. for the Prot. of Intell. Prop. Oct. 2016), available at https://sls.gmu.edu/cpip/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/10/Schultz-Madigan-The-Long-Wait-for-Innovation-The-Global-Patent-Pendency-Problem.pdf.

Another Huge Setback in CloudFlare’s Quixotic Campaign to Protect Pirate Sites

Last August, I wrote about CloudFlare’s “desperate new strategy” to protect MP3Skull, a notorious pirate site that was sued by various recording companies for copyright infringement. CloudFlare offers content delivery networking, web optimization, and other performance services for websites. The plaintiffs easily obtained a permanent injunction against MP3Skull when it didn’t even bother to respond to the suit. However, that didn’t stop MP3Skull from opening up shop under several new top-level domains using CloudFlare’s services. When the plaintiffs sent a copy of the injunction to CloudFlare and asked it stop servicing the sites, CloudFlare put up a fight.

CloudFlare has a history of supporting pirate sites. After Grooveshark was found liable for willful copyright infringement and shut down, CloudFlare was there to lend a helping hand to the copycat sites that later sprung up. The plaintiffs obtained a restraining order against the new sites, and they asked CloudFlare to not provide them with services. CloudFlare balked at the suggestion, arguing in the district court that it was not in cahoots with the enjoined defendants. The district court held that, under Rule 65, CloudFlare was indeed bound by the injunction against the copycat sites. By providing the copycats with numerous services, CloudFlare was in “active concert or participation” with the defendants.

Just as CloudFlare took the low-road with Grooveshark, it again decided to stand up for adjudicated pirates with MP3Skull. Once confronted with the injunction against MP3Skull, CloudFlare tried a new strategy. Instead of arguing that it wasn’t acting in concert with the enjoined defendants, it argued that it couldn’t be enjoined because of the DMCA. In particular, CloudFlare contended that since Section 512(j) controls injunctions against internet service providers, and since that standard was not applied here, it was not bound by the injunction. As I mentioned in my last post, this argument is ridiculous for one simple reason: CloudFlare is not being enjoined.

This past Thursday, District Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the Southern District of Florida easily shredded CloudFlare’s silly and self-serving argument: “CloudFlare contends that Section 512 of the Copyright Act (‘Section 512’) guides how the Permanent Injunction applies to it, not Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I disagree.”

Judge Cooke agreed with CloudFlare that “Section 512 outlines rules for copyright infringement-related injunctions involving online service providers[.]” But she disagreed that Section 512(j) has anything to do with whether CloudFlare was bound by the injunction against MP3Skull under Rule 65. She noted that Section 512 “does not blunt a court’s power to enforce a permanent injunction involving non-parties such as CloudFlare that may be ‘in active concert or participation’ with Defendants.” Indeed, Judge Cooke stated that “[e]very injunction . . . automatically forbids non-parties” from aiding and abetting enjoined defendants.

This is clearly the correct result. The standards that apply when enjoining a service provider under Sections 512 have no applicability to the general rule that it’s contemptuous to aid and abet a defendant that has already been enjoined. Again, CloudFlare was not the party enjoined—only MP3Skull was enjoined. And even though Section 512(j) would apply if CloudFlare were being enjoined, that’s irrelevant to the issue of whether CloudFlare, or any other non-party, is bound by the injunction against MP3Skull.

Despite this huge loss for CloudFlare, Judge Cooke left open the possibility that it could continue its mission to protect the MP3Skull defendants. Since the parties did not brief the issue of whether CloudFlare is in “active concert or participation” with the defendants, Judge Cooke found that due process requires her to give CloudFlare a chance to argue that it is not. Given its past conduct, it seems likely that CloudFlare will vigorously argue that the services it provides don’t actually help its customers to do anything. Of course, given the Grooveshark defeat on this same issue, I don’t think Judge Cooke will waste too many pages rejecting CloudFlare’s next desperate attempt to protect pirate sites.

CPIP Scholars Ask Supreme Court to Resist Call to Restrict Venue Choices for Patent Owners

On March 8, 2017, CPIP Scholars Adam Mossoff, Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, & Mark Schultz joined an amicus brief in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. CPIP Scholars worked with USD Law’s Ted Sichelman to organize, write, and file the brief. The case focuses on whether patent owners may sue corporate defendants in any judicial district where the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which is the default rule in federal cases.

Concerned about the allegedly abusive behavior of certain firms suing in the Eastern District of Texas, some would like to severely restrict where all patent owners may sue. The amici note that, even if the Supreme Court restricts venue choices as these people would like, patent lawsuits would not be equitably distributed as a result. A recent study showed that 60% of all patent cases would still be concentrated in 5 of the 94 judicial districts. Furthermore, instead of concentrating in one district—the Eastern District of Texas—cases would primarily concentrate in two districts—the Northern District of California and the District of Delaware.

As the amici argue: “No plausible argument can be made—and Petitioner and its amici have not offered an argument—that shifting cases from one district to two districts would result in a meaningful distribution of patent cases among the ninety-four federal district courts.” The amici note that concerns about “forum shopping” are overblown since patentees are just doing what all federal plaintiffs do—choosing “the forum that gives it the best opportunity for success.” Since “corporate defendants are generally subject in any civil complaint to venue in any district in which personal jurisdiction lies,” the amici suggest that the same rule should apply in patent cases.

The amici conclude: “Innovators and their investors have long been vital to a flourishing innovation economy in the United States. Startups, venture capitalists, individual inventors, universities, and established companies often rely heavily on patents to recoup their extensive investments in both research & development and commercialization. By restricting the districts in which a patent owner can bring suit, the value of the patent itself is lessened, diminishing the economic incentives the patent system provides to spur innovation.”

To read the amicus brief, please click here.

SONA and Songwriters Fight DOJ’s Misguided 100% Licensing Rule

Things are heating up in the lawsuit filed by Songwriters of North America and three of its members (SONA) challenging the new gloss of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the 75-year-old consent decrees that govern the licensing practices of ASCAP and BMI, the two largest performance rights organizations (PROs). SONA sued the DOJ on September 13, 2016, questioning the DOJ’s reinterpretation of the consent decrees to require the PROs to license all of the works in their repertories on a 100% basis. As reported by Billboard yesterday, CPIP Senior Scholar & Director, Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars is assisting SONA’s legal team at Gerard Fox Law PC in the litigation.

After completing a two-year review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees, the DOJ issued a statement on August 4, 2016, concluding that the decrees require the two PROs to offer only “full-work licenses.” On this view, the PROs would not be able to continue licensing the fractional interests in the musical compositions owned by the songwriters they represent. As the U.S. Copyright Office noted in early-2016, such fractional licensing is a “longstanding practice of the music industry.” Nevertheless, the DOJ claimed that the change “should not meaningfully disrupt the status quo in the licensing of public performance rights.”

This assertion was immediately challenged by the PROs. ASCAP President Paul Williams issued a statement that same day vowing to work with BMI “to overturn the DOJ’s decision” in both Congress and the courts. BMI filed a letter with District Judge Louis L. Stanton, who oversees BMI’s consent decree, announcing its intention to seek a declaration that the decree “does not require 100% licensing.” Six weeks later, Judge Stanton issued an opinion declaring that BMI’s consent decree “neither bars fractional licensing nor requires full-work licensing.” The victory was celebrated as a win for songwriters, and both ASCAP and BMI issued statements praising the decision. The DOJ has since appealed the issue to the Second Circuit.

In its complaint filed in the District of Columbia, SONA argues that the DOJ’s 100% licensing rule violates songwriters’ due process rights, both substantive and procedural, under the Fifth Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. Calling the DOJ’s rule “a dramatic departure from the status quo,” SONA points out that it will “limit and undermine the creative and economic activities” of songwriters by forcing them to “undertake the burdensome and potentially costly process of revisiting and amending their core business practices, private contracts, and collaborative relationships” in order to comply.

Arguing that the case should be dismissed, the DOJ challenges the standing of SONA to even invoke the court’s jurisdiction. The DOJ claims that any harm caused by the consent decrees is too speculative and remote to create an actual case or controversy, and it suggests that no songwriters have been deprived of any protected liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause. In its opposition brief filed this past Tuesday, SONA strongly opposes that contention:

[P]laintiffs have alleged and will prove at trial that [the DOJ’s] new rule has caused immediate injuries and will cause imminent injuries to each plaintiff, thus establishing standing. Plaintiffs have also pleaded facts sufficient to show that the government’s action is interfering with their freedom to contract, freedom of association, and freedom of speech, and that the government has taken their valuable intellectual-property rights without compensation, thus violating plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due-process rights.

Admonishing the DOJ’s “casual disregard for the welfare and livelihoods of America’s songwriters,” SONA points out that, under the DOJ’s new rule, songwriters will:

  • Be deprived of the ability to choose the PRO that will license their shares of coauthored works;
  • Be required to withdraw works from representation by ASCAP or BMI;
  • Have songs that they must license outside of the PRO system;
  • Need to cede administrative control over their copyrights, including the right to collect royalties, to unaffiliated third parties;
  • Be compelled to renegotiate existing contractual relationships on a song-by-song basis;
  • Be forced to consider whether they should decline to collaborate with creators who are not members of the same PRO; and
  • Have reason to consider withdrawing from ASCAP or BMI altogether.
  • Now that President Trump is in office, there is new leadership at the DOJ. Jeff Sessions was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney General earlier today, and Brent Snyder took over as acting director of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division less than three weeks ago. Just last week, the DOJ asked the Second Circuit for an extra 90 days to file its opening brief in its appeal of Judge Stanton’s ruling that the BMI consent decree does not require 100% licensing. According to the DOJ, the “requested extension is necessary to allow new leadership in the Department of Justice adequate time to familiarize themselves with the issues.” Perhaps there is hope that the DOJ will discontinue its misguided push for a 100% licensing rule that will inevitably threaten the livelihoods of songwriters.

    Intellectual Property Backgrounds of President Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees

    By Andrew Baluch[1] & Devlin Hartline

    President Donald Trump will soon announce his nominee to fill the vacancy left at the Supreme Court by late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On September 23, 2016, the Trump campaign revealed that there are twenty-one candidates under consideration for the nomination.

    Below is a summary of the intellectual property backgrounds of President Trump’s twenty-one potential Supreme Court nominees. The summary addresses judicial, legislative, and legal experience, as well as education and scholarly work. The summary includes data on each nominee’s intellectual property cases, whether decided as a judge or argued in private practice. Where appropriate, the summary also notes legislative bills that were co-sponsored by the nominee.

    Click on the nominee’s name in the table below to jump down to their detailed summary.

    SUMMARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES
    Cases Decided as Judge Cases Argued in Private Practice
    No. Nominee Patent Trademark Copyright Trade Secret Patent Trademark Copyright Trade Secret
    1 Blackwell, Keith 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 Canady, Charles 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
    3 Colloton, Steven 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0
    4 Eid, Allison 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
    5 Gorsuch, Neil 0 7 4 3 0 0 0 0
    6 Gruender, Raymond 0 5 7 2 0 0 1 0
    7 Hardiman, Thomas 1 6 5 3 0 0 0 0
    8 Kethledge, Raymond 0 4 2 1 5 0 0 0
    9 Larsen, Joan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    10 Lee, Mike N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 0 0
    11 Lee, Thomas 0 0 0 3 0 27 2 1
    12 Mansfield, Edward 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
    13 Moreno, Federico 3 15 9 3 0 0 0 0
    14 Pryor, William 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
    15 Ryan, Margaret 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    16 Stras, David 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
    17 Sykes, Diane 4 5 8 2 0 0 0 0
    18 Thapar, Amul 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
    19 Tymkovich, Timothy 1 5 6 2 0 0 0 0
    20 Willett, Don 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    21 Young, Robert 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0


    1. Keith R. Blackwell

    Supreme Court of Georgia (2012 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    Court of Appeals of Georgia (2010 – 2012)

    Prior Legal Experience

    Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs LLP; Assistant District Attorney, Cobb County, GA; Alston & Bird LLP; Law Clerk to Judge J.L. Edmondson (11th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, University of Georgia School of Law (1999); BA, University of Georgia (1996)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Case: Kremer v. Tea Party Patriots, Inc., 314 Ga. App. 459 (2012)

    Back to top.


    2. Charles T. Canady

    Florida Supreme Court (2008 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2002 – 2008)

    Prior Legislative Experience

    U.S. Representative (R-FL) (1993 – 2001) (House Judiciary Committee); Florida House of Representatives (1984 – 1990)

    Prior Legal Experience

    General Counsel to Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Lane, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Williams, PA; Holland & Knight

    Intellectual Property Bills Co-Sponsored as U.S. Representative

    Co-sponsored 13 bills involving intellectual property, including: 104th-H.R.1733, Patent Application Publication Act of 1995 (introduced); 104th-H.R.1127, Medical Procedures Innovation and Affordability Act (introduced); 104th-H.R.587, Biotechnological Process Patents (passed House); 104th-H.R.359, Patent Term Restoration (introduced)

    Education

    JD, Yale Law School (1979); BA, Haverford College (1976)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 1 total (in favor of malpractice defendant law firm and against client patentee)

    Trademark: 2 total (all in favor of owner)

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009); Florida Virtual Sch. v. K12, Inc., 148 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 2014); Rooney v. Skeet’r Beat’r Of Sw. Florida, Inc., 898 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

    Back to top.


    3. Steven M. Colloton

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2003 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Iowa; Adjunct Lecturer, University of Iowa College of Law; Private Practice, Iowa; Associate Independent Counsel, Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Iowa; Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Law Clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman (D.C. Circuit)

    Education

    JD, Yale Law School (1988); BA, Princeton University (1985)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 2 total (all in favor of infringer)

    Trademark: 9 total (7 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Co., 817 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2016); Schinzing v. Mid-States Stainless, Inc., 415 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2005); B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2013); C.B.C. Distribution & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007); Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004); Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, 129 F. App’x 323 (8th Cir. 2005); Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prod., Inc., 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004); Mid-State Aftermarket Body Parts, Inc. v. MQVP, Inc., 466 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2006); Sensient Techs. Corp. v. SensoryEffects Flavor Co., 613 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2010); Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prod., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014); Pangaea, Inc. v. Flying Burrito LLC, 647 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2011); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)

    Back to top.


    4. Allison H. Eid

    Colorado Supreme Court (2006 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Solicitor General, State of Colorado; Associate Professor, University of Colorado School of Law; Arnold & Porter; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge Jerry E. Smith (5th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, University of Chicago Law School (1991); BA, Stanford University (1987)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 1 total (dissenting in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0 (but in 1 case analogizing to patent law for “full compensation” damages)

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Case: Acoustic Mktg. Research, Inc. v. Technics, LLC, 198 P.3d 96 (Colo. 2008)

    Back to top.


    5. Neil M. Gorsuch

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Principal Deputy to U.S. Associate Attorney General; Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans; Law Clerk to Justice Byron R. White and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Circuit)

    Education

    DPhil, Oxford University (2004); JD, Harvard Law School (1991); BA, Columbia University (1988)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 7 total (2 in favor of owner; 5 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 4 total (all in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 3 total (2 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Earthgrains Baking Companies Inc. v. Sycamore Family Bakery, Inc., 573 F. App’x 676 (10th Cir. 2014); Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, 627 F. App’x 682 (10th Cir. 2015); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Engida, 611 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2010); Hargrave v. Chief Asian, LLC, 479 F. App’x 827 (10th Cir. 2012); Surefoot LC v. Sure Foot Corp., 531 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Blehm v. Jacobs, 702 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012); Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009); Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008); Russo v. Ballard Med. Prod., 550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2008); Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014)

    Back to top.


    6. Raymond W. Gruender

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2004 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri; Thompson Coburn LLP; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri; Lewis Rice & Fingersh

    Education

    JD, Washington University (1987); MBA, Washington University (1987), BA, Washington University (1984)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 5 total (5 in favor of owner

    Copyright: 7 total (4 in favor of owner; 3 in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 1 total (amicus brief on behalf of U.S. Copyright Office)

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Dryer v. Nat’l Football League, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016); First Nat. Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat. Bank S. Dakota, 679 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2012); Jones v. W. Plains Bank & Trust Co., 813 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2015); Kforce, Inc. v. Surrex Sols. Corp., 436 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006); Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Prod., LLC, 745 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2014); Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Almgren, 685 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2012); Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 598 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2010); Strange Music, Inc. v. Anderson, 419 F. App’x 707 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Frison, 825 F.3d 437 (8th Cir.); United States v. Sweeney, 611 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 2010); Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011); Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Prods., 840 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2016); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC, 653 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2011)

    Back to top.


    7. Thomas M. Hardiman

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2007 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (2003 – 2007)

    Prior Legal Experience

    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Titus & McConomy LLP; Reed Smith LLP

    Education

    JD, Georgetown University Law Center (1990); BA, University of Notre Dame (1987)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 1 total (in favor of negligent law firm)

    Trademark: 6 total (5 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 5 total (3 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 3 total (1 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Ackourey v. Sonellas Custom Tailors, 573 F. App’x 208 (3d Cir. 2014); Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 540 F. App’x 103 (3d Cir. 2013); Avaya Inc., RP v. Telecom Labs, Inc., 838 F.3d 354 (3d Cir. 2016); Boyle v. United States, 391 F. App’x 212 (3d Cir. 2010); Brand Mktg. Grp. LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs., N.A., Inc., 801 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2015); Dow Chem. Canada, Inc. v. HRD Corp., 587 F. App’x 741 (3d Cir. 2014); FedEx Ground Package Sys. v. Applications Int’l Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26651 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2005); Fishkin v. Susquehanna Partners, G.P., 340 F. App’x 110 (3d Cir. 2009); Groupe SEB USA, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 774 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2014); Aslam v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 404 F. App’x 599 (3d Cir. 2010); Sims v. Viacom, Inc., 544 F. App’x 99 (3d Cir. 2013); Singer Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Diallo, 476 F. Supp. 2d 497 (W.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d, 575 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2009); William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009); World Entm’t Inc. v. Brown, 487 F. App’x 758 (3d Cir. 2012)

    Back to top.


    8. Raymond M. Kethledge

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC; Feeney Kellett Wienner & Bush PC; Counsel, Ford Motor Company; Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy (U.S. Supreme Court); Judiciary Counsel to U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI); Law Clerk to Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr. (6th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, University of Michigan Law School (1993); BA, University of Michigan (1989)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 4 total (3 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 1 total (in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 5 total (all on behalf of infringer/generic pharmaceutical company)

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Kerr Corp. v. Freeman Mfg. & Supply Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6342 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009); Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC v. Marcos, 651 F. App’x 482 (6th Cir. 2016); L.F.P.IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 533 F. App’x 615 (6th Cir. 2013); Nagler v. Garcia, 370 F. App’x 678 (6th Cir. 2010); R.C. Olmstead, Inc., v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010); Taylor v. Thomas, 624 F. App’x 322 (6th Cir. 2015); In re Desloratadine Patent Litig., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2007); PDL BioPharma, Inc. v. Sun Pharm. Indus., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56948 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2007); Schering Corp. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41020 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2007); Sun Pharm. Indus. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35206 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2008); Sun Pharm. Indus. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46730 (E.D. Mich. June 16, 2008)

    Back to top.


    9. Joan L. Larsen

    Michigan Supreme Court (2015 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Adjunct Professor, University of Michigan Law School; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Visiting Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Sidley Austin LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Circuit)

    Education

    JD, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law (1993); BA, University of Northern Iowa (1990)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Back to top.


    10. Michael S. Lee

    U.S. Senator (R-UT) (2011 – present)

    Prior Legislative Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Howrey LLP; Law Clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (U.S. Supreme Court); General Counsel to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman; Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Utah; Sidley Austin LLP; Law Clerk to Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (3rd Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge Dee Benson (D. Utah)

    Intellectual Property Bills Co-Sponsored as U.S. Senator

    Co-sponsored 6 bills involving intellectual property: 114th-S.2733, VENUE Act (introduced); 114th-S.1137, PATENT Act (introduced and voted yes); 113th-S.1720, Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 (introduced); 114th-S.328, A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United States, or any State or local government (introduced); 113th-S.1816, A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the United States, or any State or local government (introduced); 113th-S.517, Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (became law)

    Education

    JD, Brigham Young University Law School (1997); BS, Brigham Young University (1994)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: N/A

    Trademark: N/A

    Copyright: N/A

    Trade Secret: N/A

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 1 total (on behalf of infringer Deutsche Bank)

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Case: Island Intellectual Prop. LLC v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 2012 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 15212 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2012)

    Back to top.


    11. Thomas R. Lee

    Utah Supreme Court (2010 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Rex & Maureen Rawlinson Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University; Howard, Phillips & Anderson LLC; Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, PC; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III (4th Circuit)

    Scholarly Articles on Intellectual Property

    Thomas R. Lee, et. al., An Empirical and Consumer Psychology Analysis of Trademark Distinctiveness, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 1033 (2009); Thomas R. Lee, et. al., Sophistication, Bridging the Gap, and the Likelihood of Confusion: An Empirical and Theoretical Analysis, 98 Trademark Rep. 913 (2008); Thomas R. Lee, et. al., Trademarks, Consumer Psychology, and the Sophisticated Consumer, 57 Emory L.J. 575 (2008); Thomas R. Lee, Demystifying Dilution, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 859 (2004); Thomas R. Lee, Eldred v. Ashcroft and the (Hypothetical) Copyright Term Extension Act of 2020, 12 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (2003); Thomas R. Lee, et. al. “To Promote the Progress of Science”: The Copyright Clause and Congress’s Power to Extend Copyrights, 16 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2002); Thomas R. Lee, In Rem Jurisdiction in Cyberspace, 75 Wash. L. Rev. 97 (2000) (proposing an “in rem” solution to the problem of cyberpiracy)

    Education

    JD, University of Chicago Law School (1991); BA, Brigham Young University (1988)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 3 total (all in favor of owner)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 27 total (all on behalf of owner)

    Copyright: 2 total (1 on behalf of owner; 1 on behalf of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 1 total (on behalf of infringer)

    Cases: InnoSys, Inc. v. Mercer, 364 P.3d 1013 (Utah 2015); Legacy Res., Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc., 322 P.3d 683 (Utah 2013); USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 372 P.3d 629 (Utah 2016)

    Back to top.


    12. Edward M. Mansfield

    Iowa Supreme Court (2011 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    Iowa Court of Appeals (2009 – 2011)

    Prior Legal Experience

    Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach & Flynn, PC; Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP; Adjunct Professor, Drake University Law School; Law Clerk to Judge Patrick Higginbotham (5th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, Yale Law School (1982); BA, Harvard University (1978)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 1 total (on behalf of owner)

    Trademark: 1 total (on behalf of infringer)

    Copyright: 1 total (on behalf of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 1 total (on behalf of owner)

    Cases: Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales del Centro S.A. de C.V., 384 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Iowa 2005), aff’d, 464 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Amerus Group Co. v. Ameris Bancorp, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32722 (S.D. Iowa May 22, 2006); Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131652 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016); Midwest Oilseeds, Inc. v. Limagrain Genetics Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28698 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 8, 2002)

    Back to top.


    13. Federico A. Moreno

    U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (1990 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (1987 – 1990); Miami-Dade County Court (1986 – 1987)

    Prior Legal Experience

    Thornton, Rothman & Moreno, PA; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Florida; Rollins, Peeples & Meadows, PA

    Education

    JD, University of Miami School of Law (1978); BA, University of Notre Dame (1974)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 3 (1 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

    Trademark: 15 (11 in favor of owner; 4 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 9 (7 in favor of owner; 2 in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 3 (2 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Biotanic, Inc. v. Vazquez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69048 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2010); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (S.D. Fla. 1998); Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 1999); Coach Servs. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67739 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2010); Davis v. Raymond, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68392 (S.D. Fla. May 13, 2013); Erika Boom & Belly & Kicks I, LLC v. Rosebandits, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158528 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2013); CEyePartner, Inc. v. Kor Media Group LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98370 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2013); Fuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 2010); HFuentes v. Mega Media Holdings, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5298 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2011); Gapardis Health & Beauty, Inc. v. Pramil S.R.L. (ESAPHARMA), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98005 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2007); Gen. Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (S.D. Fla.); Glob. Innovation Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Acer Am. Corp., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hosp. Research Inst., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003); MHermosilla v. Octoscope Music, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129469 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2010); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. IFITNESS, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46824 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2012); Inmuno Vital, Inc. v. Golden Sun, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (S.D. Fla. 1997); HLorentz v. Sunshine Health Prods., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100985 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2010); Milk Money Music v. Oakland Park Entm’t Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121661 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2009); NPA Assocs., LLC v. Lakeside Portfolio Mgmt., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22805 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2014); Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Clarke Modet & Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Polvent v. Global Fine Arts, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130936 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2014); Promex, LLC v. Perez Distrib. Fresno, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90677 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2010); Setai Hotel Acquisitions, LLC v. Luxury Rentals Miami Beach, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171396 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2016); TNT USA, Inc v. TrafiExpress, S.A. de C.V., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2006); SValeant Int’l (Barb.) SRL v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193254 (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2012); Valeant Int’l (Barbados) SRL v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128742 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2011); Valoro, LLC v. Valero Energy Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110554 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014); Y.Z.Y., Inc. v. Azmere USA Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192674 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2013)

    Back to top.


    14. William H. Pryor, Jr.

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2004 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Visiting Professor, University of Alabama School of Law; Attorney General, Alabama; Deputy Attorney General, Alabama; Adjunct Professor, Samford University, Cumberland School of Law; Walston, Stabler, Wells, Anderson & Bains; Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal; Law Clerk to Judge John M. Wisdom (5th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, Tulane University School of Law (1987); BA, Northeast Louisiana University (1984)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 3 total (all in favor of owner)

    Copyright: 3 total (all in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: ADT LLC v. Alarm Prot. Tech. Florida, LLC, 646 F. App’x 781 (11th Cir. 2016); Genesys Software Sys. v. Ceridian Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20914 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016); Jysk Bed’N Linen v. Dutta-Roy, 810 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2015); Latele TV, C.A. v. Telemundo Communs. Group, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20345 (11th Cir. Fla. May 26, 2016); Navellier v. Fla., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21473 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 1, 2016); Singleton v. Dean, 611 F. App’x 671 (11th Cir. 2015); Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes & of Malta v. Florida Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, The Ecumenical Order, 809 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2015)

    Back to top.


    15. Margaret A. Ryan

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (2006 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Wiley Rein LLP; Bartlit Beck Palenchar & Scott LLP; Cooper Carvin & Rosenthal; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit); Judge Advocate, U.S. Marine Corps

    Education

    JD, Notre Dame Law School (1995); BA, Knox College (1985)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Back to top.


    16. David R. Stras

    Minnesota Supreme Court (2010 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Professor, University of Minnesota Law School; Faegre & Benson LLP; Sidley Austin Brown & Wood; Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. Supreme Court); Law Clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge Melvin Brunetti (9th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, University of Kansas School of Law (1999); MBA, University of Kansas (1999); BA, University of Kansas (1995)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Case: Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digital Corp., 854 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 2014)

    Back to top.


    17. Diane S. Sykes

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2004 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    Wisconsin Supreme Court (1999 – 2004); Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County (1992 – 1999)

    Prior Legal Experience

    Whyte Hirschboeck & Dudek SC; Law Clerk to Judge Terence T. Evans (E.D. Wis.)

    Education

    JD, Marquette University Law School (1984); BS, Northwestern University (1980)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 4 total (3 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Trademark: 5 total (2 in favor of owner; 3 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 8 total (4 in favor of owner; 4 in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 2 total (all in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Allan Block Corp. v. Cty. Materials Corp., 512 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2008); Bell v. Lantz, 825 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2016); Cent. Mfg., Inc. v. Brett, 492 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007); Chicago Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc., 770 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2014); Coach, Inc. v. DI DA Imp. & Exp., Inc., 630 F. App’x 632 (7th Cir. 2016); Consumer Health Info. Corp. v. Amylin Pharm., Inc., 819 F.3d 992 (7th Cir.); Edgenet, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 658 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011); Furkin v. Smikun, 237 F. App’x 86 (7th Cir. 2007); Georgia-Pac. Consumer Prod. LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2011); Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 769 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2014); Hecny Transp., Inc. v. Chu, 430 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2005); Hyson USA, Inc. v. Hyson 2U, Ltd., 821 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2016); Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist., 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011); Mostly Memories, Inc. v. For Your Ease Only, Inc., 526 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2008); nClosures Inc. v. Block & Co., 770 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2014); Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc., 586 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2009); Specht v. Google Inc., 747 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2014); Waterloo Furniture Components, Ltd. v. Haworth, Inc., 467 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006); Wisconsin Alumni Research Found. v. Xenon Pharm., Inc., 591 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2010)

    Back to top.


    18. Amul R. Thapar

    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (2008 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Kentucky; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Ohio; General Counsel, Equalfooting.com; Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia; Trial Advocacy Instructor, Georgetown University Law Center; Adjunct Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School; Adjunct Professor, University of Virginia School of Law; Adjunct Professor, Northern Kentucky University, Chase College of Law; Williams & Connolly; Squire Sanders & Dempsey; Adjunct Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Law Clerk to Judge Nathaniel R. Jones (6th Circuit); Law Clerk to Judge S. Arthur Spiegel (S.D. Ohio)

    Education

    JD, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law (1994); BS, Boston College (1991)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 1 total (in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Trade Secret: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015); Fastenal Co. v. Crawford, 609 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Ky. 2009); Rich & Rich P’ship v. Poetman Records USA, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Ky. 2010)

    Back to top.


    19. Timothy M. Tymkovich

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2003 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Hale Hackstaff Tymkovich, LLP; Colorado Solicitor General; Davis Graham & Stubbs; Bradley Campbell Carney & Madsen; Law Clerk to Justice William H. Erickson (Colo. Supreme Court)

    Education

    JD, University of Colorado School of Law (1982); BA, Colorado College (1979)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Trademark: 5 total (4 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Copyright: 6 total (1 in favor of owner; 5 in favor of infringer)

    Trade Secret: 2 total (1 in favor of owner; 1 in favor of infringer)

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Cases: Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2006); Celebrity Attractions, Inc. v. Okla. City Pub. Prop. Auth., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15244 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016); Cellport Sys., Inc. v. Peiker Acustic GMBH & Co. KG, 762 F.3d 1016 (10th Cir. 2014); Enter. Mgmt. Ltd., Inc. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2013); La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005); Sportsmans Warehouse, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 311 F. App’x 136 (10th Cir. 2009); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2014); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16055 (10th Cir. May 26, 2015); Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014); Team Tires Plus, Ltd. v. Tires Plus, Inc., 394 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2005); Tomelleri v. MEDL Mobile, Inc., 657 F. App’x 793 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. Shengyang Zhou, 717 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2013); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., 516 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2008)

    Back to top.


    20. Don R. Willett

    Supreme Court of Texas (2005 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    None

    Prior Legal Experience

    Deputy Texas Attorney General; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy; Special Assistant to the President and Director of Law and Policy, President George W. Bush; Domestic Policy and Special Projects Adviser, Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential Campaign; Director of Research and Special Projects, Governor George W. Bush; Haynes & Boone, LLP; Law Clerk to Judge Jerre S. Williams (5th Circuit)

    Education

    JD, Duke University School of Law (1992); BBA, Baylor University (1988)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 1 (dissenting in favor of state-court jurisdiction for patent negligence suits – a view ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court)

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Case: Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011)

    Back to top.


    21. Robert P. Young, Jr.

    Michigan Supreme Court (1999 – present)

    Prior Judicial Experience

    Michigan Court of Appeals (1995 – 1999)

    Prior Legal Experience

    General Counsel, AAA Michigan; Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

    Education

    JD, Harvard Law School (1977); BA, Harvard College (1974)

    Intellectual Property Cases Decided as a Judge

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 1 total (in favor of owner)

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Intellectual Property Cases Argued in Private Practice

    Patent: 0

    Trademark: 0

    Copyright: 0

    Trade Secret: 0

    Case: Citizens Ins. Co. v. Pro-Seal Serv. Grp., Inc., 477 Mich. 75 (2007)

    Back to top.

    [1] Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School. The author would like to thank Intellectual Ventures for its invaluable research support.