It's been a busy year in the IP world, with billion-dollar patent verdicts, notable legislation and upcoming Supreme Court arguments. In our February cover story, InsideCounsel examines the seven most pressing IP issues and provides expert insight on how they may impact corporate counsel.

 1. How will the war between Apple and Samsung end?

Experts disagree on whether this long-running, global patent battle will conclude with a settlement or a trip to the Supreme Court, but many agree that its outcome will have a lasting impact on the IP and mobile device world. If the two companies settle, for instance, it could result in a cross-licensing agreement such as that in a recent settlement between Apple and HTC.

No matter the outcome, the dispute also has underscored the increasing importance of design rights, which many high-tech companies are protecting with patents.  

2. How will companies—and the patent office—deal with the implementation of the America Invents Act?

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) became law in September 2011, but companies are still bracing for its central provisions, which go into effect next month. Among the biggest changes enshrined in the law is the transition from a first-to-invent to a first-inventor-to-file system, and a broader definition of prior art that includes international public use or sale.

The AIA also increases the standard for filing multidefendant patent suits—which patent trolls often use to widely assert their patents—and allows parties to contest patents more quickly with its post-grant and inter partes review proceedings.

3. Are human genes patentable?

This question is one that the Supreme Court is poised to take up in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The Federal Circuit has twice upheld Myriad's patents on two human genes, once in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus. In that case, the high court ruled that Prometheus' method for determining the effectiveness of a drug was not patentable because it involved a “law of nature.”

“A lot of people in the industry are concerned that [the Supreme Court will] limit eligibility by striking down these claims,” says Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider Partner Jonathan Harris. “It's hard to know, but they took the Myriad case for a reason. There's obviously something the Federal Circuit did that they did not like.”