Intellectual Property and Technology NewsPERSPECTIVES • ANALYSIS • VISIONARY IDEAS

CCPA vs. GDPR: the same, only different

ITC update: a quick look at the last 10 years

So you want to go digital…

Top franchise developments of 2018

DLA Piper’s sixth annual global IP symposium in Japan

ISSUE 41 / Q1 2019 / ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

10th Anniversary Edition

IPT NEWS

2

IPT NEWS

Frank RyanPartnerGlobal Co-Chair and US Co-Chair, Intellectual Property and Technology

Ann K. FordPartnerGlobal Co-Head, Sectors, US Co-Chair, Intellectual Property and Technology

What’s changed in 10 years?

Editor’s Column

Matt GruenbergPartnerIntellectual Property and Technology

What has changed for intellectual property and technology in 10 years? Nothing, and everything.

Since we started this publication ten years ago, in one sense, nothing has changed. Intellectual property and technology are still rapidly growing and still are at the heart of what every company needs to protect.

In another sense, though, everything has changed. IPT rights are even more relevant today. We now live in an ever-changing digital world characterized by new technologies and explosive growth.

For the past ten years, we have covered technology’s cutting edge issues, including the America Invents Act, GDPR, Alice, the IoT, gene patenting, EDTX, biosimilars, GTLDs, TC Heartland, the PTAB, disparagement, franchisor joint employer issues, cloud computing, circuit splits and more. We have seen

old laws stretch to cover new technology, and new laws enacted to encompass such technology. As our centerfold story notes, consumer data privacy rights are taking center stage globally.

In the coming decade, we will continue helping our clients across all sectors face challenging issues every day: from e-commerce, AI and web scraping to blockchain, augmented reality and technology convergence. Our preeminent IPT practice will continue serving our clients in geographies around the globe, providing a discerning path across this ever-changing legal landscape.

Welcome to our 41st issue, marking the 10th anniversary of IPT News.

When we first set out to publish this magazine, our goal was to highlight the intersection of intellectual property law and technology. At that time, eDiscovery and Internet patent litigation were only emerging themes, and e-signatures and two-factor authentication could be seen in movies like Avatar, but not in our day-to-day practices.

In 2009, IPT News reflected DLA Piper’s commitment to engaging IPT lawyers in pro bono work and broadening the participation of women in IP.

These are commitments and values we continue to stand for today. This 10th anniversary issue both expands on these early themes and symbolizes DLA Piper’s place on the cutting edge of the law and business principles governing intellectual property and technology.

In this issue, we take a look back at the last 10 years of US International Trade Commission investigations, review two US Supreme Court cases involving intellectual property, compare the California Consumer Privacy Act and General Data Protection Regulation, learn about US eSignature laws, and examine

the top franchising developments of 2018. We also offer a glimpse into our sixth annual Global IP Symposium that recently took place in Japan and introduce you to new colleagues who are helping us expand our capabilities in life sciences and data privacy.

We hope you have had a productive and fulfilling beginning to 2019 and that you find opportunity in your schedule to review the articles in this issue.

Best wishes for the decade ahead.

matthew.gruenberg@dlapiper.com

frank.ryan@dlapiper.com ann.ford@dlapiper.com

3

WWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBAL

28 DLA Piper lawyers in 10 countries ranked among The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals

WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals 2019 names 28 DLA Piper lawyers from 10 countries to its list of top trademark professionals. WTR identifies these leading professionals through an exhaustive research process, interviewing hundreds of lawyers around the world and highlighting only “individuals that are deemed outstanding in this critical area of practice.” Leigh Martin, Richard Taylor and Alexander Tsoutsanis are new additions to the list, demonstrating the firm’s growing coverage in the competitive trademark scene.

Annamaria AlgieriItaly

Pavel ArievichRussia

Chris BennettCanada

Edward ChattertonChina

Ryan ComptonUnited States

Ron DimockCanada

Karine Disdier-MikusFrance

Gualtiero DragottiItaly

Gina DurhamUnited States

Tamar DuvdevaniUnited States

Désirée FieldsUnited Kingdom

Ann FordUnited States

Darius GambinoUnited States

Ruth HoyUnited Kingdom

Natalia KirichenkoUkraine

Horace LamChina

Michael MalloyRussia

Leigh MartinUnited Kingdom

Keith MedanskyUnited States

Niels MulderNetherlands

Natalia PakhomovskaUkraine

Sangeetha PunniyamoorthyCanada

Richard TaylorUnited Kingdom

Alexander TsoutsanisNetherlands

Melinda UptonAustralia

Roberto ValentiItaly

John WilksUnited Kingdom

Thomas ZuticUnited States

IPT NEWS

4

The US International Trade Commission conducts investigations under 19 U.S.C. §1337 (Section 337 investigations) directed to any unfair act in the importation of articles into the US. Almost all of these are intellectual property cases, greater than 90 percent of which include an assertion of patent infringement. The number of such investigations instituted per fiscal year has increased significantly over the past 10 years, from 37 (2009) to about 70-80 (2016-18) annually. The increase has been especially significant in the biopharma/medical device sector, where the number of investigations has grown from 2 (2010) to about 15 per year.

DLA Piper welcomes seasoned data privacy lawyer Tracy Shapiro

DLA Piper recently welcomed seasoned data privacy lawyer Tracy Shapiro as a partner in Northern California.

As part of the Data Protection, Privacy and Security group, Tracy will focus on privacy and data security matters. She has extensive experience counseling technology companies on compliance with privacy laws, including Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements, COPPA, VPPA, student privacy laws and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

Tracy spent six years as an attorney in the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection and Division of Advertising Practices, giving her particular insight into the defense of clients in FTC and state attorney general investigations. She also counsels on advertising and marketing laws and the FTC’s Endorsement Guidelines.

Tracy received her J.D. from the George Washington University Law School and her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Learn more about Tracy Shapiro at: www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/s/shapiro-tracy

ITC Section 337 Update:

A quick look at the last 10 yearsTony V. Pezzano and Michael P. Dougherty

5

In addition to the Commission’s lack of venue and personal jurisdiction requirements, unique in rem jurisdiction, and the speed of its proceedings, several developments during the past 10 years have contributed to the increase in Section 337 investigations, among them:

• The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland, which restricted venue requirements for patent cases, leading to a decrease in district court filings and an increase in ITC filings

• The Commission’s policy of not staying Section 337 investigations pending parallel PTAB proceedings, further enabling it to provide decisions faster than district courts

• The extraterritorial reach of Commission investigations has permitted adjudication of claims that originate in foreign jurisdictions. See, eg, Sino Legend Chem. Co. v. ITC (Rubber Resins & Processes for Mfg. Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-849 (trade secret misappropriation in China) and

• The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Suprema v. ITC that the Commission has jurisdiction to block imported products that induce or contribute to infringement in the US

One exception to the growth in Section 337 investigations has been with respect to Category 2 Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), which purchase patents for the purpose of exploitation. Recent Commission decisions have tightened the domestic industry standards to require something the Category 2 NPEs do not have: a product that practices the asserted patents and a significant investment in a domestic industry tied to such product. This has decreased the number of Category 2 NPE cases from a high of 9 (2011) to 0 (2018).

The past 10 years have also seen significant changes to the Commission’s rules of practice, all of which have improved the speed and efficiency of its decision making, including:

• In 2010, the Commission began delegating authority to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to take evidence and hear arguments on the statutory public interest factors, which has occurred in approximately 100 investigations to date

• In 2013, the Commission introduced a Pilot Program for the 100-Day Initial Determination (ID) Procedure, resulting in early determinations in investigations for lack of domestic industry, standing and importation as well as patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101

• In 2013, the Commission set limitations on the number of depositions and interrogatories, and restrictions on electronic discovery and

• In 2017, the Commission formally adopted the 100-Day ID Procedure and provided that the Commission may sever a complaint into multiple investigations for efficient adjudication

Among notable examples of recent decisions consistent with some of these changes are Non-Volatile Memory Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1046 (holding a domestic industry article does not have to be sold); Motorized Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1132 (expanding scope of 100-Day ID procedure to determine whether the complainant is contractually barred from enforcing its IP rights against respondents); and Mobile Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065 (for the first time, an ALJ recommended against granting an exclusion order where a patent was held valid and infringed on public interest grounds that exclusion would jeopardize the 5G technology industry relative to China and would harm national security; this recommendation is under review by the Commission).

Tony Pezzano is a partner in the IPT group and based in New York. In his almost 30-year career as a patent litigator, he has tried numerous cases involving technology innovation. Reach him at tony.pezzano@dlapiper.com.

Michael Dougherty is a partner in the IPT group and based in New York. Representing brand pharmaceuticals in suits against generic drug companies under the Hatch-Waxman Act is a cornerstone of his 30-year career. Reach him at michael.doughtery@dlapiper.com.

IPT NEWS

6

Supreme Court Corner Cases we are following Stan Panikowski and Brian Biggs

In celebration of the 10th anniversary of IPT News, we note that 10 years ago, in the first quarter of 2009, Bernard L. Bilski filed his petition in the landmark Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), forever shaping the patentability of business methods.

WWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBAL

7

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.PATENT – DECIDED: JAN. 22, 2019Holding: A confidential sale to a third party may trigger the post-AIA “on sale” bar, 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

As amended by the AIA, § 102(a) provides a person is entitled to a patent unless “the claimed invention was… in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” (The phrase “or otherwise available to the public” was among the AIA amendments.) In 2001, petitioner Helsinn entered into a license, supply and purchase agreement with a third party related to Helsinn’s cancer drug where the third party was required to keep the drug’s formulations confidential. Later, Helsinn filed a series of patent applications, at least one governed by the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). The district court found Helsinn’s 2001 agreement did not trigger the § 102(a) on-sale bar because the formulation of the drug was not known to the public. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that if the drug’s sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed to trigger the on-sale bar.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit, finding the AIA’s “on sale” bar language should be interpreted as the pre-AIA on-sale bar to include confidential prior sales. The Court said the AIA’s amendment to 102(a) “added only a new catchall clause (‘or otherwise available to the public’),” which the Court found “captures material that does not fit neatly into the statute’s enumerated categories but is nevertheless meant to be covered.” Helsinn thus provides some certainty to practitioners the post-AIA on-sale bar will follow the pre-AIA jurisprudence; however, the decision leaves open what circumstances will fall into the “or otherwise available to the public” catchall.

Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLCTRADEMARK – ARGUMENT: FEB. 20, 2019Issue: Whether, under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to continue to use the mark.

Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code allows the trustee to reject an executory contract of the debtor in some circumstances. In 1985, the Fourth Circuit’s Lubrizol decision held that rejection of a patent license under § 365 terminated the licensee’s rights to use the licensed invention. In response to Lubrizol, Congress added § 365(n) to the Code, which allows an “intellectual property” licensee to retain its rights post-rejection, but trademarks are not within the enumerated “intellectual property” subject to § 365(n).

Respondent Tempnology licensed to petitioner Mission rights to use Tempnology’s trademarks. Tempnology later filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and rejected the license agreement with Mission; Mission objected. The First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel followed the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 Sunbeam decision, finding Tempnology’s rejection under §365 constitutes a breach by the debtor which did not affect Mission’s right to continue to use the mark. A divided First Circuit panel reversed, following Lubrizol because Congress did not include trademarks within §365(n), and found that rejection terminates the licensees’ trademark rights.

On appeal, Mission argues the First Circuit’s decision is contrary to §365, which treats rejection as a breach, but not a termination of Mission’s rights. Mission contends Lubrizol was wrongly decided and that Congress’s omission of trademarks from §365(n) is irrelevant. Tempnology argues §365 renders rejected contracts unenforceable against the debtor’s estate post-petition except in limited, enumerated circumstances. Tempnology contends Lubrizol was correct, and rejection of the license terminates Mission’s ability to continue to use the mark.

Partner Stan Panikowski, based in San Diego, focuses on IP, antitrust, appeals and other areas of business litigation. Reach him at stanley.panikowski@dlapiper.com.

Associate Brian Biggs, based in Wilmington, Delaware, represents clients across many technical fields in patent litigation. Reach him at brian.biggs@dlapiper.com.

IPT NEWS

8

The groundbreaking California Consumer Privacy Act has been nicknamed California’s GDPR, referring to the European Union’s comprehensive data protection law that took effect in May 2018, just one month before the CCPA was passed. The CCPA, which comes into effect in January 2020, creates sweeping new rights for Californians and onerous transparency and other obligations for businesses handling their information.

While the law is a game changer for the US, “California’s GDPR” may be a bit of a misnomer. The two laws share some key components, yet present crucial differences. Businesses that have undertaken GDPR compliance will have an advantage in addressing CCPA, but those efforts alone won’t suffice.

CCPA vs. GDPR: the same, only differentCarol A.F. Umhoefer and Tracy Shapiro

WWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBAL

9

CCPA OVERVIEWThe CCPA applies to certain businesses, regardless of location, that collect personal information about California residents, and, as of now, applies to information regarding customers (both individuals and entities), vendors and employees.

The law includes an expansive definition of personal information that, in addition to identifying information like names or phone numbers, includes such elements as IP address, device identifiers and biometric, audio and location information.

Under the CCPA, California residents will have rights to access their personal information, to have it deleted and to opt out of its “sale” (defined broadly to include any disclosure in exchange for something of value). The law also raises the stakes in the event of a data breach by creating a class action right and statutory damages without having to prove actual losses.

COMPARISON TO GDPRThe CCPA is often compared to the GDPR – both laws give individuals rights to access and delete their personal information, require transparency about information use and necessitate contracts between businesses and their service providers.

In some respects, however, the CCPA does not go as far as GDPR. Most crucially, the CCPA does not require businesses to have a “legal basis” (a justification set forth in GDPR) for collection and use of personal information. The CCPA also does not restrict the transfer of personal information outside the US, or require that businesses appoint a data protection officer and conduct impact assessments. In addition, California residents’ right to access personal information is limited to data collected in the past 12 months. CCPA also places fewer obligations on service providers.

In other respects, the CCPA differs or goes beyond the scope of GDPR:

• The CCPA’s definition of personal information specifically includes household information.

• While both the CCPA and GDPR require detailed privacy notices, the required content of those notices differs. A privacy policy that meets the requirements of the GDPR will likely not satisfy the CCPA’s requirements.

• Under GDPR, a business does not necessarily need the individual’s consent to collect and use data, in which case the individual does not have a general opt-out right. But CCPA grants individuals an absolute right to opt out of the sale of their personal information and obligates businesses to add a “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link on websites and mobile apps.

• Although both the CCPA and GDPR prescribe provisions that must be included in contracts with service providers, the requirements differ, and GDPR data processing agreements will likely not meet CCPA requirements.

• Finally, the GDPR and CCPA take different approaches to children’s privacy rights. GDPR requires that parents provide consent for the processing of their children’s personal information in an online environment – but only where the legal basis for processing is consent. Children are defined as under 16, although member states can lower the age to 13. The CCPA, in contrast, addresses the sale of children’s information – not all processing – and requires that businesses first obtain opt-in consent. Parents must provide consent for kids under 13; teens 13-15 can provide their own consent.

Carol Umhoefer, a partner and foreign legal consultant and based in Miami, is the global co-chair of the EMEA Data Protection, Privacy and Security practice. Reach her at carol.umhoefer@dlapiper.com.

Tracy Shapiro, a partner and based in San Francisco, helps technology companies comply with federal and state privacy laws. Reach her at tracy.shapiro@dlapiper.com.

10

IPT NEWS

So you want to go digital… In the United States, two primary laws make it possible to sign agreements and present information electronically in circumstances where a “wet” signature and a written document would otherwise be required: the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) (collectively, the eSignature Laws).1

These two laws bring with them new opportunities, and new challenges. The design of a system for signing electronic agreements, or delivering disclosures or other documents electronically, requires a detailed understanding of the interaction between electronic processes and legal requirements.

Please see the expanded version of this article at www.dlapiper.com/so-you-want-to-go-digital for an overview of some of the core issues that must be addressed to ensure the legal sufficiency of digital transactions, such as:

• Authority to sign• Authentication• Consent• Delivery and presentation• Signature and attribution• Record retention and evidence

ESIGNESIGN was enacted into law on June 30, 2000 and took effect October 1, 2000. In short, ESIGN adopts the simple principle that electronic signatures and records should be accorded the same legal status as ink signature and paper records. ESIGN does not change the underlying substance of any law within its scope; instead, it affects only the medium for execution and delivery of writings.

ESIGN treats commercial and consumer transactions differently, however. For commercial transactions, the parties’ agreement to conduct the transaction will be implied from the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction or by an express statement of intent. For consumer transactions, ESIGN requires that companies provide consumers with a specific set of disclosures before being able to provide required disclosures electronically.

Lastly, ESIGN applies to federal law and preempts any inconsistent state law, with the proviso that if a state adopts UETA without amendment, ESIGN will not preempt that enactment.

Margo Tank, a partner in Washington, DC, is US Co-Chair of the Financial Services Sector and Co-Chair of the Blockchain and Digital Assets practice. She advises commercial enterprises and technology companies on regulatory compliance associated with the use of electronic signatures and records. Reach her at margo.tank@us.dlapiper.com.

A brief overview of the US eSignature laws

Margo Tank and David Whitaker

David Whitaker, a partner and based in Chicago, also advises commercial enterprises and technology companies on regulatory compliance issues associated with the use of electronic signatures and records, electronic payments and other digital transaction matters. Reach him at david.whitaker@us.dlapiper.com.

11

WWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBALWWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBAL

11

1. 15 U.S.C. § 7001, et seq.; National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Final Draft of Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (July 1999), available at: https://www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument /final-act-with-comments-29?CommunityKey=2c04b76c-2b7d-4399-977e -d5876ba7e034&tab=librarydocuments

UETAUETA was approved and recommended by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in July 1999. To date, it has been adopted by 47 states as well as Washington, DC and the US Virgin Islands. Three states that have not adopted UETA are Illinois, New York and Washington, though each has adopted its own law governing electronic signatures and records.

Like ESIGN, UETA adopts the simple principle that electronic signatures and records should be accorded the same legal status as ink signature and paper records. UETA, however, differs from ESIGN in a few areas. First, it does not contain any requirement that consumers be provided with specified disclosures before agreeing to proceed electronically (though as noted below, certain states have amended their UETA in various ways, one of which is to require such disclosures). Second, UETA governs attribution of electronic signatures. And third, UETA addresses when an electronic record has been sent and received. As noted above, states have sometimes enacted variations to UETA, with California being the most prominent example.

See the expanded version of this article at www.dlapiper.com/so-you-want-to-go-digital.

A brief overview of the US eSignature laws

2019 IFA Annual Convention The International Franchise Association (IFA) held its 59th Annual Convention in Las Vegas from February 24-27, 2019. DLA Piper has been honored to serve as general counsel to the IFA for 59 years. Our various programs included the firm’s annual networking reception as well as numerous client facing meetings, Institute of Certified Franchise Executive special sessions, a moderated roundtable discussion and two thought provoking summits.

Rick Morey and Stuart Hershman led a panel on the Elements of Successful Franchising, an interactive session focused on top trends and their impact on successful franchise systems. They reviewed major legal, financial and business stories that shaped franchising in 2018, and looked to what we think we will see later in 2019. Rick also led a program on IFA’s sales management and compliance program, FranGuard™, demonstrating measures for success and pitfall avoidance.

Bret Lowell and Barry Heller conducted a course addressing key problems faced by management of franchisors, along with the “principles” used to help solve those issues. Using a hypothetical franchisor, the two led a series of unique and entertaining scenarios through the life cycle of a franchisor – from early stages to mature years.

Alexander Tuneski led a panel discussion on Opportunities and Challenges Facing Franchising, noting legal landscape changes through legislation effecting franchises. Specifically, he dove into labor-related legislation and how to manage relevant risk for an organization.

12

IPT NEWS

Top franchise developments of 2018Barry Heller, John Hughes and Karen Marchiano

DLA Piper IPT attorneys Barry Heller, John Hughes and Karen Marchiano recently conducted a webinar reviewing 2018’s top franchise developments. Two stand out from the rest.

13

WWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBAL

Partner Barry Heller, based in Washington, DC and Northern Virginia, concentrates on franchise litigation and arbitration throughout the US and internationally. Reach him at barry.heller@dlapiper.com.

Partner John Hughes, based in Chicago, is a commercial litigator who concentrates on franchise litigation in forums throughout the US. Reach him at john.hughes@dlapiper.com.

Of Counsel Karen Marchiano, based in Silicon Valley, represents franchisors in litigation and arbitration throughout the US. Reach her at karen.marchiano@dlapiper.com.

“While such claims have largely survived motions to dismiss, the trend that they face defeat on summary judgment has continued”

No-poaching disputesProvisions prohibiting the franchisee from hiring an employee from another franchisee or the franchisor have come under attack. Concern over these clauses stems from Department of Justice and FTC guidance issued in 2016, providing that “naked” no-poaching agreements among companies are per se unlawful under federal antitrust laws. But the guidance also said no-poaching clauses that are ancillary or reasonably related to otherwise pro-competitive agreements would be assessed under a more lenient standard, such as the rule of reason.

As a result of activity by state attorneys general, many franchisors have agreed to eliminate no-poaching clauses from their future agreements and not to enforce them in existing agreements. At least one franchisor, Jersey Mike’s Subs, refused to settle and became embroiled in litigation with Washington State.

Employees of franchisees have also filed putative class actions against many of the largest franchisors, asserting that these no-poaching clauses constitute per se violations of antitrust laws. Recently, the DOJ filed notices of intent to file a statement of interest in three of these actions, informing the court of its position that no-poaching clauses in franchise agreements should not be assessed under the per se standard, but under a rule of reason. The Washington State Attorney General filed a submission asserting such clauses should be treated as per se illegal under Washington State antitrust law.

As of the time of this printing, we await court rulings on these filings.

Joint employer claimsIn 2018, franchisors continued to face lawsuits asserting they were the joint employers of their franchisees’ employees. While such claims have largely survived motions to dismiss, the trend that they face defeat on summary judgment has continued: Jimmy John’s prevailed on summary judgment in the Northern District of Illinois and Domino’s prevailed on summary judgment in the Southern District of New York.

On the National Labor Relations Act front, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in Browning-Ferris Industries v. NLRB, 911 F.3d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (a non-franchise case closely watched by the franchise community) that the NLRA’s test for joint employer status is determined by the common law of agency, under which to be a joint employer, control – which can be direct or indirect, exercised or reserved – must bear on the essential terms and conditions of the worker’s employment.

Franchisors are waiting to see how this test is applied in the franchise context to controls franchisors exercise over their franchisees.

IPT NEWS

14

DLA Piper’s sixth annual Global IP Symposium in Japan

Attendees at the conference

Nathan Bush, Head of Investigations, Asia, discusses implications of FCPA guidelines

Ann Ford and Matt Satchwell host a lively discussion with participants

Amy Rubenstein presents on litigation trends

Kanpai! Paul Steadman raises a glass with an attendee.

Ray Williams discusses product liability lawsuits and triggers

15

WWW.DLAPIPER.COM/IP_GLOBAL

Our Intellectual Property and Technology group recently hosted its Sixth Annual Global IP Symposium in Japan. The program was extended to a full-day seminar this year, with mornings dedicated to Litigation presentations and afternoons dedicated to Intellectual Property and Technology presentations. The Symposium added an additional day this year, and was held in Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo. Each program included lunch and was followed by a cocktail reception. Dan Christenbury, Paul Steadman, Matthew Satchwell and Shuzo Maruyama organized this year’s program.

Presenters included Nathan Bush (Singapore), Eunice Chung, Ann Ford, David Kramer, John Rah (all Washington, DC), Takahiro Nonaka (Tokyo), Amy Rubenstein, Matthew Satchwell, Paul Steadman (all Chicago) and Raymond Williams (Philadelphia).

In addition to the presentations, Shuzo Maruyama (Chicago) moderated panel discussions with special guest speakers Kazuto Yamamoto (Daiichi Law Office), Masato Sasaki (Fukami Patent Office) and Kaoru Kuroda (Abe, Ikubo & Katayama Law Firm).

The programs drew more than 160 attendees, including in-house counsel from companies such as Brother Industries, Citizen Watch Company, DENSO, Fujitsu, Konica Minolta, Kubota, Olympus, Panasonic, Subaru, Toshiba and Toyota.

DLA Piper’s sixth annual Global IP Symposium in Japan

New York patent litigators bolster DLA Piper’s Life Science sector

Michael Furrow and Brian O’Reilly recently joined the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology practice as key patent litigation partners in New York. Both Michael and Brian bring significant experience in the life sciences sector through the representation of medical device and brand pharmaceuticals companies in complex patent disputes.

Michael will serve as the firm’s US Chair for Life Sciences Patent Strategy. He has extensive experience representing pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in patent disputes covering more than a dozen drugs in federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He draws from deep knowledge in the pharmaceutical field and has defended innovation across myriad therapeutic areas, all aspects of drug discovery and development including new chemical entities, salt forms, stereoisomers, prodrugs, solid-state forms, dosage forms, combination products, therapeutic methods and laboratory tools.

Brian joins with impressive experience on high-profile, strategically important and ground-breaking pharmaceutical cases in federal courts throughout the United States. In addition to pharmaceutical cases, he has represented clients in all areas of intellectual property, including patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret cases.

Michael received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his A.B. and Ph.D. in Chemistry from Harvard University. Brian received his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Massachusetts.

Learn more about Michael Furrow at: www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/f/furrow-michael

Learn more about Brian O’Reilly at: www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/o/oreilly-brian

Michael Furrow Brian O’Reilly

BTI Consulting’s 2019 Client Service A-Team rankings report names DLA Piper as one of the best law firms for providing a superior level of client service. Over the past year, the firm moved up on the BTI Client Service 30 and was ranked number two in the survey for providing

value for the dollar to in-house counsel. We are honored to be recognized by clients for our excellent service and value.

Recognized as one of the best firms for client service

Attorney Advertising

DLA Piper LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704

Intellectual Property and Technology News is published in the North America, Asia Pacific and EMEA regions. Find all current and past editions of the IPT News here: www.dlapiper.com/ipt_news. To subscribe to this complimentary publication, please email your contact information to IPTnews@dlapiper.com.

You are receiving this communication because you are a valued client, former client or friend of DLA Piper and you have requested to receive this information. The information contained in this newsletter is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter and does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and DLA Piper. Further, any description of past successes or comparisons does not guarantee future results. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to communications@dlapiper.com or send your written request to DLA Piper, Attention: Marketing Department, 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704, USA. Copyright © 2019 DLA Piper LLP (US), DLA Piper UK LLP and other affiliated entities. For questions, comments and suggestions, email us at IPTnews@dlapiper.com or contact Mohib Qidwai, Marketing Manager, T +1 310 595 3043, mohib.qidwai@us.dlapiper.com. Global and US Co-Chair – Intellectual Property and Technology, Frank W. Ryan, T +1 212 335 4850, frank.ryan@us.dlapiper.com. US Co-Chair - Intellectual Property and Technology, Ann K. Ford, T +1 202 799 4140, ann.ford@us.dlapiper.com. Editor in Chief, Matt Gruenberg, T +1 310.595.3018. Director, Intellectual Property and Technology, Licia Vaughn, T +1 619 699 2997, licia.vaughn@dlapiper.com. DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704, USA | MRS000122900