Welcome to Skilled in the Art. I'm Law.com IP reporter Scott Graham. Here's what I've got cooking today:

• Final thoughts on the en banc arguments in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin.

• Perkins Coie snags an IP leader from Kirkland.

• Mintz brings aboard branding expert from Cooley.

• The USPTO is hiring for a cool new position.

As always, you can email me your thoughts and follow me on Twitter.

Attorney Francis Malofiy and Judge Andrew Hurwitz

5 Takeaways from the Led Zeppelin Arguments

The Ninth Circuit convened en banc Monday for a second look at Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, the copyright case in which the estate of musician Randy Wolfe claims '70s supergroup Led Zeppelin copied his song "Taurus." The court heard just over an hour of argument, much of it centered around whether the sheet music deposited at the Copyright Office defines the scope of copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act, or whether jurors should have heard the descending chromatic scales featured in "Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven." Yes, it's kind of a snoozer issue, but there were plenty of other highlights along the way. Such as:

1) Whatever happened to the "inverse ratio" rule? Some of the wrangling on appeal has been about U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner's failure to instruct jurors on the "inverse ratio" rule, which holds that the greater the access an accused infringer had to a copyrighted work, the lower the standard of proof necessary for copying. The three-judge panel that ordered a retrial in this case said an inverse-ratio instruction "may be appropriate" on remand. The Recording Industry Association of America and a group of IP professors asked the Ninth Circuit to repudiate the instruction, as other circuits have. It didn't get a mention Monday until 43 minutes into the argument, when Chief Judge Sidney Thomas perfunctorily asked Led Zeppelin counsel Peter Anderson to "argue for a minute on the continued vitality" of the rule. The Davis Wright Tremaine partner argued that access should be a non-issue. Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page participated in hundreds of recording sessions in the 1960s with the likes of the The Who and The Rolling Stones before forming Led Zeppelin. "Jimmy Page did not need to hear Taurus to know about a descending chromatic scale," he said. There were no follow-up questions on inverse ratio.

2) Thin might be in. On the other hand, the judges had a lot of questions about whether conventional musical elements, if selected and arranged in an original manner, are due only "thin" copyright protection. The estate's attorney, Francis Malofiy, had dismissed the idea in briefs as "the cause du jour of the music industry and its allies." But a few of the judges wanted to explore it. "Do you agree with what the government stated, that the smaller the range of available creative choices, the thinner the copyright protection should be?" Judge Jacqueline Nguyen asked Malofiy.

3) It's not safe to go back in the courtroom! Malofiy told Nguyen no, then demonstrated that even two notes can be worthy of broad copyright protection by re-creating the theme from the movie Jaws. "Da-na. Da-na, da-na, da-na," he said. "Everyone recognizes that Jaws is as much about the music as it is about the movie." The judges sounded skeptical. "Is it the two notes that are protectable or the two notes repeated?" Nguyen asked. "Jaws may not be your best example," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said, explaining that in her view Malofiy didn't preserve that argument at trial.

4) Copyrightability issue might be waived. Judges McKeown, Thomas and Nguyen suggested that Malofiy waived his selection-and-arrangement arguments at trial. Judge Susan Graber said any error by Klausner on copyrightability appeared harmless. So we may get reflections on copyrightability and thin protection, but probably something short of binding case law.

5) Good job, Judge Hurwitz! Malofiy is a fan of Judge Andrew Hurwitz, or at least one of his cases. Before he became a judge, Hurwitz successfully argued Ring v. Arizona, a 2002 Supreme Court case that expanded Sixth Amendment rights for capital defendants. Despite some adversarial questioning during Monday's argument, Malofiy gave Hurwitz a shout-out. "Thank you. It's a humbling experience being before you all," he said in closing. Then glancing toward Hurwitz, he added, "And Ring v. Arizona, great case." I'm wondering if any of the other 10 judges felt a little snubbed.

Now Hiring: USPTO Seeks AI Specialist

In case you haven't noticed, the Patent Office is getting serious about artificial intelligence. The agency convened a conference on the subject in January and last month invited public comment on issues involving inventorship and AI.

Now the PTO is in the market for its own Senior Level Artificial Intelligence Expert to "advance the shared understanding of how to best implement the opportunities presented by Artificial Intelligence."

This position appears to be mostly internal facing, with the AI expert providing technical advice to the agency's CIO and Deputy CIO for optimizing AI infrascture/architecture across the PTO, and demonstrating "thought leadership to advise on AI and automation strategy and detailed use cases development by business units."

More details can be found here.

This full-time position will be based in Alexandria and the compensation is $127,914 to $176,900 per year.

IP Lateral: Sarah Piepmeier joins Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie has added IP partner Sarah Piepmeier to its San Francisco office from Kirkland & Ellis, my ALM colleague Xiumei Dong reports. Kirkland had been describing Piepmeier as "a leader" of its Bay Area IP practice.

It's a reunion of sorts, as Piepmeier was an associate at Perkins during the early 2000s before joining Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and then Kirkland.

Aside from rejoining old friends, Piepmeier said the draw was that Perkins is "a West Coast firm that really focuses so heavily on the technology sector."

I'll add that Perkins has been on an IP hot streak lately, scoring high-profile Federal Circuit wins on sovereign immunity at the PTAB; patent eligibility in a case against the famed Cleveland Clinic; and the obviousness of Teva Pharmaceuticals patents on MS treatment Copaxone. That last win came against a team made up largely of Kirkland attorneys.

Now, don't get me wrong. Kirkland still maintains all manner of star IP talent in the Bay Area and elsewhere. All I'm saying is that Piepmeier and former PTO Solicitor Nate Kelley, who joined Perkins last fall, are nice gets for an IP practice that seems to be gaining momentum.

"We're excited to welcome Sarah back to Perkins Coie," Shannon Bloodworth, co-chair of Perkins Coie's intellectual property practice, said in a statement. "With her extensive experience litigating complex patent cases, Sarah will augment our talent in the Bay Area and further enhance our ability to serve our clients' most demanding IP needs."

Mintz Brings in Drug Branding Specialist

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo has brought aboard trademark attorney Karen Won as a partner.

Won previously had been special counsel at Cooley, where she'd worked for 11 years. She also was an associate briefly at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

According to Mintz, Won has specialized experience counseling life sciences clients on branding matters across the development and commercialization life cycle. That includes clinical trial branding, drug naming and brand licensing. Her work also includes domestic and international trademark prosecution, working with foreign counsel to implement a coordinated strategy across the global trademark portfolio.

"We're pleased to welcome Karen to the firm," Bob Bodian, Mintz's managing partner said in a written statement. "The pragmatic, strategic guidance she's known for is a great fit with our thriving intellectual property practice."

That's all from Skilled in the Art today. I'll see you all again on Friday.