IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

IPWatchdog CON2020 Has Been RESCHEDULED for September 13-15, 2020

IPWatchdog CON2020We have great news to share with all of our readers and our IPWatchdog CON2020 Speakers, Sponsors, Exhibitors and registrants. We have finally worked out an amicable resolution with the Renaissance Dallas Richardson hotel. Although we will still hold a Virtual Program on Monday, March 16, IPWatchdog CON2020 is no longer canceled. We have rescheduled for Sunday, September 13 through Tuesday, September 15, 2020.

The program will be nearly identical to the live program we had scheduled for this month.  As we work out the details for the newly scheduled event, we will update the IPWatchdog CON2020 website with any changes that need to be made.  We have also reopened our Registration Page for the event.

All things considered, this works in everyone’s favor. CON2020 will now be the first Conference to kick off the fall Conference season. By September, we will be past the Coronavirus and flu season, which will dramatically increase attendance.

We will move all registrations and sponsorships to the new dates for CON2020. If for any reason, registrants will not be able to attend the event in September, I ask that they please reach out to me directly and we can discuss next steps.

Again, thank you so much to all of you for your continued support and understanding as we have worked through this unforeseen global health crisis.

We look forward to an even more successful IPWatchdog CON2020 in Dallas, Texas on September 13-15, 2020!

Join Us For Our Virtual Patent Masters Program

On Monday, March 16, 2020, beginning at 9:00 AM EDT we will be broadcasting our Virtual Patent Masters 2020 Program.  Speakers include Jim Carmichael, Makan Delrahim, Todd Dickinson, Ted Essex, Patrick Kilbride, Scott McKeown Judge Paul Michel, Gene Quinn, Rob Sterne, Bob Stoll, Jamie Underwood, & John White.

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Join the Discussion

19 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    March 10, 2020 09:43 pm

    Dallas in September ??? 110 degrees and sticky outside – bad choice

    You need to have open patent debates outdoors in wash dc in front of US Capitol or somewhere close with another public demonstration like burning US patents (I still have my official copy with ribbon and can come on short notice to burn it.. heck I don’t even mind being arrested for burning it in improper place)

    And you need to inject the subject of patents into presidential debates

    Those won’t be nice debates anyway

  • [Avatar for Renee C. Quinn]
    Renee C. Quinn
    March 11, 2020 09:10 am

    Angry dude,

    Have you been following our story? We had to postpone the event because of the coronavirus and September was the only date available. If we didn’t take those dates, we stood to lose tons of money! The entire event, from morning to night will be inside and air-conditioned. What’s better a conference in Dallas in September, or IPWatchdog losing everything? Think!

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    March 11, 2020 11:47 am

    Renée,

    You might want to be aware that ‘angry dude’s’ entire range of responding is pure emotion without reason.

    It is extremely rare that a response from him shows any degree of critical thinking (I suppose that to him, being critical is a suitable proxy for critical thinking).

    For whatever reason, he even has struck out at anyone that engages in legal discussion, as if the mere presence of critical thinking is ‘dangerous’ to his emotional path.

  • [Avatar for Freedom]
    Freedom
    March 11, 2020 01:55 pm

    Anon, it is sometimes hard to keep emotion completely out of the debate. Are you aware of last week’s Susan McKnight v. Iancu at the CAFC? This one might make even you emotional. The infringer backed out of the appeal of a PTAB invalidation, so the inventor should have won. Instead, the USPTO sent attorneys to fight on behalf of the infringer to invalidate the patent they had issued. The USPTO succeeded. Thoughts?

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    March 11, 2020 02:12 pm

    @Anon

    Dude,

    You should read “Animal Farm” – not US Constitution or “court” decisions
    Because that’s where we are right now… USA circa 2020

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    March 11, 2020 04:44 pm

    Freedom,

    I have no problem whatsoever with emotion.

    Emotion without reason is an entirely different matter.

    Emotion without reason that serves the interests of the Efficient Infringers is beyond that and will draw my ire.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    March 11, 2020 05:13 pm

    Angry Dude-

    This post was to announce that IPWatchdog CON2020 was rescheduled. You can think that rescheduling is a bad choice, but you are wrong (as you so often are).

    I don’t follow the comments like I once did, but if you find it necessary to get the first word in to hijack this thread you really should consider whether you should be commenting here on IPWatchdog at all. Hijacking threads with nonsense is prohibited, and my tolerance for your antics is at an all-time low.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    March 11, 2020 05:24 pm

    Freedom,

    Another thought (one that I have shared on more than one prior occasion):

    Since the Supreme Court has seen fit to modify the property nature of a granted patent to be a “Public Franchise” form of personal private property, the notions imbued from Franchisor/Franchisee relations should also carry over.

    Specifically, the Franchisor should indemnify their work (seeing as their act of Grant creates a real world property expectation with associated costs).

    This indemnification should include the fiduciary duty to protect the item that has been franchised, and this includes BOTH not seeking to destroy the item (even acting to defend the item against being destroyed) as well as footing all reasonable costs incurred with enforcement actions against infringers.

    The Supremes want the ‘negative’ aspect of franchise, but such should not come without ‘positive’ aspects.

    How quick of a retreat do you think that you would see if the Entire package were to be applied?

  • [Avatar for Freedom]
    Freedom
    March 11, 2020 05:25 pm

    Anon, I actually agree with you. Have you looked at Susan McKnight v. Iancu at the CAFC?

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    March 12, 2020 07:06 am

    Freedom,

    I have not looked at the CAFC McKnight case. Can you provide a link?

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    March 12, 2020 08:30 am

    Is there any further information about the March 16 virtual event?

  • [Avatar for Freedom]
    Freedom
    March 12, 2020 02:31 pm

    Anon – The Susan McKnight v. Iancu case fits exactly what you are talking about. The infringer backed out of the appeal, and the USPTO provided attorneys to fight the inventor at the appeal. And the USPTO won, at great cost to the inventor, and invalidated the patent it had issued.

    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/19-1696/19-1696-2020-03-06.html

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    March 12, 2020 05:20 pm

    Freedom @12

    And the reason we don’t have bloody civil war yet ?

    Because… patents apply to only a tiny percent of the US population

    So nobody really cares… including patent attorneys on this blog

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    March 12, 2020 08:57 pm

    Freedom,

    Your link was to the Per Curial two page item.

    I cannot give you a meaningful comment on that.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    March 13, 2020 10:04 am

    This looks great to me. I am going to try and come.

  • [Avatar for Freedom]
    Freedom
    March 13, 2020 11:50 am

    Anon – All that matters here is the infringer backed out before the appeal and the inventor should have won. But that didn’t happen. The inventor had to fight the USPTO directly because the USPTO stepped in for the infringer to fight the inventor, and the inventor lost. Talk about the the franchisor not indemnifying its work! To add insult to injury, it was a Rule 36.

  • [Avatar for angry dude]
    angry dude
    March 13, 2020 12:59 pm

    Freedom @16

    It’s amazing that USPTO hasn’t shut its doors yet

    (This is not me whining – that’s what Gene himself wrote back in 2019)

    I guess they still need those fees… thanks but no thanks…

  • [Avatar for Ternary]
    Ternary
    March 15, 2020 02:35 pm

    Renee and IPWatchdog, thanks for arranging half-day FREE online Patent Masters Event tomorrow. Very classy. I will most certainly attend. Thanks again.

  • [Avatar for Ternary]
    Ternary
    March 16, 2020 02:43 pm

    Excellent on-line event today. Speakers were outstanding. I am not sure that I am as optimistic as the Speakers on our Patent System. It was really a bit surprising to me. But I agree with the assessment of most: if the US wants to maintain its leading position in technology and innovation in the world we had better improve the incentives that patents (should) provide for doing inventions.

    Thanks very much IPWatchDog for organizing this on-line conference.