The Roles of Technology Expertise in Law and Policy
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Presiding Officer: Judge Jeremy Fogel (ret.), Executive Director, Berkeley Judicial Institute
The Use of Technical Expertise in Patent Litigation: Claim Construction, Patent Validity, and Patent Infringement
Patent claim construction and validity demand that courts view and evaluate patent claims from the standpoint of persons having ordinary skill in the art: the PHOSITA standard. The Markman/Teva decisions make claim construction an issue for the court, authorizing district judges wide discretion in how expertise is deployed. Patent validity, however, is often assessed by juries, although recent § 101 jurisprudence arguably affords judges somewhat more discretion in handling that question too. This session will explore how patent litigators and judges view the role of technical experts in claim construction, patent validity, and patent infringement.
Morgan Chu (moderator), Irell & Manella
Judge Alan Albright (WD Tex)
John Desmarais, Desmarais LLP
Sonal Mehta, WilmerHale
Judge Maryellen Noreika (D Del)
Judge Jon Tigar (ND Cal)
Kathi Vidal, Winston & Strawn
The Use of Economic and Technical Expertise in Patent Litigation: Patent Remedies
The determination of patent damages (lost profits, reasonable royalty, and FRAND licenses) and the availability and fashioning of injunctive relief typically turn on economic expertise. Patent remedies can also involve technical expertise. Daubert motions and motions in limine are commonly filed challenging the use of remedies experts. This session will explore the current state of play on the use of economic and technical experts addressing patent remedies.
Matthew Powers (moderator), Tensegrity Law Group
Carolyn Chang, Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang
Judge James Robart (WD Wash.)
Dan Rubin, The Round Table Group
Judge James V. Selna (CD Cal.)
The Use of Technical Expertise in Copyright Litigation: Computer Software
This session will explore the role of technical experts in software copyright litigation.
Pamela Samuelson (moderator), Berkeley Law/BCLT
Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Penn Law
David Hayes, Fenwick & West
Matthias Kamber, Keker Van Nest & Peters
Peter Menell, Berkeley Law/BCLT/BJI
The Use of Technical Expertise in Copyright Litigation: Music
This session will focus on the Blurred Lines litigation as a means to explore the role of music experts in musical composition infringement litigation.
Peter Menell (moderator), Berkeley Law/BCLT/BJI
Mark Avsec, Attorney, Musician, Musicologist
Richard Busch, King & Ballow
Judith Finell, Musicologist
Joseph Fishman, Vanderbilt Law School
Friday, February 28, 2020
Presiding Officer: Armbien Sabillo, Symposium Editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Who are the experts and what is the expertise necessary for sound technology policy and use of technology in governance?
This panel will explore how the development of technology policy and the use of technology in governance requires both technical experts and expertise in the specific policy domains that the technology affects or to which the technology is being applied. Among other questions, it will consider whether traditional academic programs are producing the kinds of experts required, or do we need new models to address a new or heightened need?
Ken Bamberger (moderator), UC Berkeley Law School
Jessica Eaglin, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University Bloomington
Hillary Hartley, Government of Ontario, Canada
Susan Landau, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy and Department of Computer Science, Tufts University
Priscilla Regan, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University
Since the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment was shuttered over 20 years ago, the federal government has experimented with different ways to bring technical expertise into technology policy making and technology deployment, ranging from the chief technologists at the FTC and FCC, to the US Digital Services team (USDS) and the 18F “skunk works” team developed during the Obama Administration, to the TechCongress fellows and the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) team within the Government Accountability Office. These programs vary in objectives, where they position expertise, what work they perform–advisory to hands-on–and the tools they use to accomplish it. Given the varying needs of the legislature, the executive, and the independent regulatory agencies, what have we learned from these efforts and what does it recommend for the future?
Pam Samuelson (moderator), UC Berkeley Law School
Alan Davidson, Mozilla
Alexandra Givens, Georgetown Univ. Law School
John Morris, The Brookings Institution, Center for Technology Innovation
Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School
|12:30 p.m.||Luncheon Keynote||
Sheila Jasanoff, Harvard Kennedy School
Particular challenges at the state and local level
As technology permeates public services and functions from voting to welfare delivery, state and local governments are faced with a daunting need for expertise. What are the challenges governments face at this level, how are they being addressed, what can we learn and generalize from these efforts?
Catherine Crump (moderator), Berkeley Law/BCLT
Jeremy Epstein, National Science Foundation
Jennifer Pahlka, Founder, Code for America, former US Deputy Chief Technology Officer, OSTP
Brittny Saunders, Deputy Commissioner for Strategic Initiatives, NYC Commission on Human Rights, Co-Chair of the NYC Automated Decision Making Taskforce
Rebecca Slayton, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell
Evidence, objectivity, and measurement
How do we decide when and how to use technology? When and how do we measure its impact? What methods are necessary to make wise choices about technology policy and deployment? How do we bring them into government services?
Jennifer Urban (moderator), Berkeley Law/BCLT
Colleen Chien, Santa Clara University Law School
Chelsea Mauldin, Public Policy Lab
Rob Marek, Government Accountability Office
Jake Snow, ACLU of Northern California
Bridging between the technocratic and the democratic
Policy decisions can be embedded in system design, but the opacity of technical systems due to corporate secrecy, technical illiteracy, and technical complexity creates immense challenges to public input and accountability. This closing session will consider what processes can ensure the “political visibility” required for public input and political oversight. Impact assessments? Design reviews? Expert advisory boards? New software engineering approaches?
Deirdre Mulligan (moderator), Berkeley Law and School of Information/BCLT
Alexandra Chouldechova, Carnegie Mellon University
Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Internet Society
David G. Robinson, Cornell University
Daniel J. Weitzner, MIT
CLE: UC Berkeley School of Law has certified this program for 11.75 hours of MCLE credit (Thu: 4.75; Fri: 7.0)