[The IPKat] Fordham 33 (Report 8): IP in Washington

[Annsley Merelle Ward]

IP and Washington at Fordham The IPKat is back in Fordham, with the Spring skies and the chirping birds gracing the streets of the Upper West Side. As a proud and long-standing partner with the Fordham IP Conference, now in its 33rd year, the IPKat is thrilled to partner with the students of Fordham for reports from this years’ conference. This report comes from Ryan Ricketson (student at Penn State Dickinson Law) on Blended Session 7C: IP in Washington.

Over to Ryan:    

This session’s topic was about how IP policy forms and changes in Washington, DC.

Joe Whitlock took the moderator chair, and began by asking panelists Kelly Anderson (US Chamber of Commerce), Dave Jones (High Tech Inventors Alliance), Jacqui Kapplar (House Judiciary Committee), and Peter Anthony Peppas (U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary) to identify some of the key players in IP policy making. The panelist's diverse background brought with it a variety of responses, with members of congress, staff, and even corporate sponsors identified as making big moves when it comes to policy making.

Kelly Anderson tied in later the primary agencies involved in IP, mentioning the UDSR as trade and policy experts, the USPTO, and working with the Commerce Department for a broad perspective on issues. She stated that executive’s goal is identifying commercial barriers, and that there are ways to tie IP into this.

The panel mentioned the main pending bills regarding IP right now, including the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, the PREVAIL Act, the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, the NO FAKES Act, the Preventing Abuse of Digital Replicas Act, the CLEAR Act, and the COPIED Act. They also encouraged people to engage with congress, with Dave Jones emphasizing that the main drive for change in DC is personalities and relationships.

When asked about future vacancies in IP positions in congress, Peter Anthony Peppas responded that big changes were coming. With both Senator Tillis and Senator Blackburn on their way out, he emphasized how important it was for those filling the positions and their staff to care about IP issues.

The discussion moved to the process of an IP bill, with panelists agreeing that stakeholders are involved during all steps of the process. Jaqui Kapplar spoke of the role committee staff play in generating bills, and about her own experiences asking for case law to better understand stakeholder’s positions. Kelly Anderson emphasized the importance of specificity when it comes to IP bills. Jaqui Kapplar and Dave Jones also gave insights into how timing can influence a bill’s movement based on when people are paying the most attention to the issue.

In the end, the panelists agreed that bipartisanship in IP is one of the most important factors for movement of IP policy. It affects how IP work is done internally, and subcommittee members work closely together during the process."