1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Mallesons IP Commercialisation Webcast on Patent Reform in the US: The Potential Consequences

Mallesons IP Commercialisation Webcast on Patent Reform in the US: The Potential Consequences

Event | 10.13.08, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

For several years, the US Congress has been considering various "reforms" to the US patent laws. Most of the proposals involve the adoption of a "first to file" system, which would make US law much more similar to that in Australia, Europe, and Japan. One of the main consequences of adopting a first-to-file system is that virtually all patent interference proceedings would be eliminated (though certain "derivation proceedings might remain). The other main aspect of patent reform will likely involve the creation of post-grant opposition proceedings, which will also serve to bring US law closer to that in other countries.

The US is a key market for many Australians. The current 'first-to-invent' and patent interference provisions have a significant effect on the way that researchers/inventors on this side of the Pacific document their research and approach patent filing strategy.

Michael Jacobs will be presenting. It will focus on the profound impact these changes will likely have on patent practice in the US. In particular, Mr Jacobs will address how recordal of inventions, patent prosecution and filing and litigation strategies will be affected by the changes in the law and will provide advice on things to consider if the changes do indeed occur.

For more information, please visit these areas: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation

Participants

Insights

Event | 02.20.25

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.

View All Insights