Subject to change
Click on items below to see details or download the PDF schedule
Generative AI is likely to touch all of us in the creation of IP, use of our IP in training sets, it will impact how we work and affect us through novel tools and experiences that we may not even have imagined. The Panelists will address generative AI’s status, its future, its legal implications, some of which is in current litigation, and how it will impact our IP transactions, with special attention to stage of AI concerned with ingesting data (training).
Kindly sponsored by
This panel will explore SEP FRAND negotiations and rates from the perspectives of a diverse group of experienced stakeholders. The objective is to provide the audience transparency on a topic that is often opaque. We expect a lively discussion stemming from the differing views and experiences of the panelists, which will include representatives of operating company licensees, operating company licensors, NPE licensors, and licensing strategy advisors. The panel will cover some combination of the following topics:
• FRAND ask rates vs. agreed upon rates
– Size of the delta and how to efficiently and effectively bridge it in negotiations• Privately agreed rates vs. court imposed rates
– How and why they differ
– The significance/weight of court-imposed rates in private negotiations• Variance in FRAND ask rates
– Explore the variance in ask rates among licensors of a given standard, and whether such variance is predicted by characteristics of the licensor – e.g. entity size, portfolio size, portfolio origin (internal vs. acquired), entity type (NPE vs. operator), licensing program funding source (external vs. internal), etc.
•FRAND rate setting methodologies and frameworks
– Benefits and drawbacks of declared patent counts as a value apportionment methodology
– Practical alternatives or adjustments to patent count-based calculations
•FRAND negotiations process
– Licensors – how to prepare and structure the initial approach and ask
– Licensees – how to prepare and structure counteroffers
– Balancing precedent benchmarks – licensor’s precedents on the same patents vs. licensee’s precedents within the same standard
The “Strategic and IP concerns with ChatGPT and OpenAI” panel at the conference is poised to comprehensively examine the Generative AI landscape, starting with OpenAI’s well-publicized products like ChatGPT. Esteemed speakers will provide an insightful exploration of its operational intricacies while identifying key areas of concern that prominently feature Intellectual Property (IP) issues arising from its novel capabilities. Amidst this backdrop, the panel will underscore the abundant opportunities that Generative AI avails for the development of innovative products and solutions. A particularly intriguing segment will spotlight pioneering startups that have boldly stepped up to confront these challenges, with a distinct focus on addressing IP-related concerns. The panel seeks to illuminate the dynamic interplay between cutting-edge technology and innovative business strategies by showcasing these entrepreneurial endeavors. It will vividly illustrate how Generative AI can be both a catalyst for novel creations and a means to navigate complex IP landscapes, thereby reshaping the technological and business frontier.
The panel will focus on topics of practical significance to the changing IP dealmaking landscape and preparing IP and licensing professionals to handle new developments in legal, technological, and business practices they’ll face in the next few years through the lens of LES Standards. And will highlight how LES is leading the way in Dealmaking Trends in the Evolving Innovation Economy through the ANSI-accredited LES Standards Development Organization.
Three LES Standards Board members are presently planning the panel content and full roster of speakers. The session will focus on practical ways in which the Standards matter, as well as the current process and opportunities available to everyone in the IP dealmaking space. The focus areas for every Standard were selected by leading experts with decades of experience. And each Standard is a result of a consensus drafting process by representative committees of experts on the topic of the Standard.
Learn more about how these directly on point Standards can improve your work, benefit the profession and make the IP dealmaking landscape more efficient. And for those interested in learning more about and helping shape their profession, opportunities for engagement.
As the private sector moves into outer space, the limitations of IP regimes based on geographical borders become ever more apparent. Whether outer space is the site of invention or an act of infringement, or it’s the development and use of technologies peculiar to space travel, traditional approaches to IP and licensing are lacking. The manner in which the space industry is addressing these challenges is instructive to those dealing with more earthly IP and licensing issues. Director Vidal has led the way in shining a light on the future of IP and licensing in space, and is eager to share her thoughts and hear from stakeholders about how to promote innovation through effective, practical innovations in IP protection in this exciting new realm.
Following a fireside chat with Director Vidal, a panel of IP experts with experience in government, academia, and industry will discuss the practical implications and their strategic approaches under today’s global IP regime, and share their thoughts as to how the current regime might better serve industry and innovation in space.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly pervasive in all aspects of life, and it’s important to understand both the opportunities and risks associated with this technology. The panel will discuss a range of topics related to AI, including different types of AI systems and how they work, challenges in developing AI systems, and different applications of AI systems. Panelists will also present on what it means to use AI responsibly, risks associated with using AI (including bias) and best practices in managing these risks. Further, implications for licensing of AI technologies will be considered, including what can be done to manage risks associated with using and licensing output of AI systems, and how to negotiate and manage transactions in which AI will be provided as a service. (This program description was prepared with the assistance of ChatGPT.)
Please view the NIST document here.
This panel will discuss how patent owners can maximize the value of licenses to an entire supply chain through strategic licensing negotiations with upstream component suppliers.
After the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom, component suppliers may face higher reasonable royalty demands in licensing negotiations. (See recent IAM article written by the moderator, “Patent damages precedent makes waves in component suppliers’ negotiations,” available at https://www.iam-media.com/article/patent-damages-precedent-makes-waves-in-component-suppliers-negotiations). The Broadcom decision and its application in recent district courts indicate that in patent litigation, reasonable royalty damages should account for the entire value of a patented invention’s use in the marketplace, not merely its use by an individual infringer. As a result, component suppliers may face royalty rates that account for the full value an infringing component contributes throughout a supply chain.
How should licensing professionals address Broadcom in negotiations between patent owners and component suppliers? This panel will discuss Broadcom strategies for licensing negotiations by outlining the relevant underlying legal principles and then examining a hypothetical case study to demonstrate how to model the financial terms of a licensing offer to frame patent owners’ and potential licensees’ corresponding risk exposure to drive settlement and avoid litigation. The panel of experienced patent litigators and licensing professionals will provide attendees a diverse range of perspectives on this topic.
The High Technology Sector will meet to provide updates on sector activities including achievements over the year, planning for the upcoming year, and sector networking.
By 2025 over 75 billion devices will be connected. These IoT devices span every major industry including manufacturing, logistics, utilities, medical devices and healthcare, not to mention consumer products we use every day. Given the growth and sheer breadth of industries and sectors that fall under the IoT umbrella, this is a market that we as a licensing community need to focus on now.
Our panel will bring together implementers and patent holders in the IoT space, as well as experts who are engaged in and understand the industry economics and trends, in what will be an engaging and informative talk. As a licensing community, taking best practices from licensing in the mobile device/telecom space while recognizing and learning from past mistakes and adding a little creativity/flexibility will help us get in front of this new and exciting opportunity.
This panel will discuss potential licensing models and their role in licensing in the IoT space and possible variations of traditional licensing models. For example, would a “one stop shop” model like patent pools or patent platforms work for certain IoT verticals that use multiple connectivity technologies (e.g., 5G, Wi-Fi, mesh protocols, LPWAN, RFID) and/or “menu” licensing (e.g., certain segments of cellular like NB-IoT)? Is there a role for independent forums to determine licensing rates and structure, maybe on an industry by industry basis? Are licensing negotiation groups a solution to allow licensees to coordinate or is this anticompetitive?
Transparency is always an issue in licensing, but in the IoT space it’s even more important. How can we as licensing professionals introduce more transparency in the process-on an industry or sector level can we engage potential implementers and patent holders at an earlier point for candid discussion around industry economics. Involve business people/technical/engineers in the mix? Use of simple licensing terms and/or rate cards? Look to companies that track detailed data and market intelligence on patents that may relate to the IoT space for help? We will discuss what implementers need/want from patent holders and vice-versa. Sorting this out sooner rather than later will lower transaction costs and a reduce litigation.
Our panel members who operate at different levels of the production chain for IoT devices may discuss both where in the chain licensing could occur (or does it matter from an economic perspective) as well as evolving issues of indemnification.