Judge William C. Bryson
Date: 6:00pm PDT October 6, 2011 Location: Classroom 8 - Reception to follow
Classroom 8 - Reception to follow
“A Panel Discussion with Judge Bryson”
Lewis & Clark Law School’s Intellectual Property program welcomes their 13th annual Distinguished Intellectual Property Visitor Judge William C. Bryson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Panel Members to include Judge William C. Bryson, Matthew C. Phillips, Stoel Rives LLP and John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
About Judge William C. Bryson
Judge Bryson was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by President Clinton in 1994. Prior to his appointment, Judge Bryson was with the United States Department of Justice from 1978 to 1994. During that period, he served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General [1978-79], Chief of the Appellate Section of the Criminal Division [1979-83], Counsel to the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section [1983-86], Deputy Solicitor General [1986-94], Acting Solicitor General [1989 and 1993], and Acting Associate Attorney General . He was an Associate at the Washington, DC law firm of Miller, Cassidy, Larroca and Lewin from 1975 to 1978. Judge Bryson served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Henry J. Friendly, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1973 to 1974, and as Law Clerk to the Honorable Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court of the United States, from 1974 to 1975. Judge Bryson received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1969 and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1973.
Among Judge Bryson’s recent opinions are some of the Federal Circuits most important pronouncements in patent law, including Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) concerning the methodology for claim construction; Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) reconceptualizing the basic infringement framework for design patents; Princo Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n., 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) rejecting the defense of patent misuse in a package-license case; and In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) rejecting a due process challenge to a trial court’s procedure for requiring the parties to litigate representative claims from a large number of asserted claims.