 morning. I'm also excited to be here as well. I'm actually fascinated by this discussion and I was trying to think as I was preparing for this you know what it is that I bring to the table. I like Elliot, the only reason I have slides really, I love your branding. I love the picture especially with the fluorescent bulb although maybe it should move into an LED at some point. I have a few slides that go into some detail but I'm really here just to put the branding up and happy to talk further and look forward to the substantive discussion. What I bring to the table is I am the government representative I think here, the only one. I've been at PTO for about eight years and was there during a lot of legislative change a lot of changes to the system that very significant. I've been one of the people claiming the biggest change since 1836. Previous to that I bring a corporate perspective. I worked with a number of companies on all sides of technology using the patent system trying to use the patent system to further their to grow their company to further development of technology. There's a very different goals in mind than in the university setting and I love exploring that because I think as I've looked at universities they've in many cases the technology transfer offices have acted more like corporations in becoming more sophisticated and managing their portfolios in recent years. I've been in the profession long enough to see autumn from a very small organization to a very large organization now and in large part that is as the universities have become more sophisticated again they've acted they've managed like many corporations. It doesn't mean that their goal should be profit and profit alone. Leslie I enjoyed your remarks I think I think it's a balance for universities and that those incentives may or may not be necessarily in the corporate interest. Of course they may like universities trying to build a network of support trying to be identified for particular technologies and therefore draw the best talent. Companies also maybe I would argue more so in recent years have developed to create a brand and a brand that's appreciated and showing that they're actually driving the technology for they are the driver and that's who you want to necessarily invest with. So maybe some of the dynamics are there but I think and looking forward to explore that issue more that balance it's not just for profit motive that's certainly true. So let me give a quick snapshot of PTO. I want to spend a couple minutes in my in my ten minutes on the importance of legislative changes some of the continuing challenges and then that last bullet I think is open to our 45 minutes. PTO today is different from when I joined the PTO in 2009. Number one it's much bigger. It had to be bigger. It had to be bigger to get the job done. To be able to as quickly as it can looking at the best and broadest prior art record that there is issue quality patents. There's a lot in there and again for PTO it's an issue of balance. We're never going to do a perfect job. There need to be checks on the system. We also are facing an ever-growing body of prior art as we look at applications coming in the door. So the challenges for the PTO include keeping up with the prior art being able to move forward on a quick pace because we know that that delay not only devalues the patent for whoever the applicant is university inventor large company but it creates lots of uncertainty in the marketplace and with the explosion of technology in a lot of different areas that is even more important today than it was 20 years ago 30 years ago 40 years ago. So PTO had to grow to keep up with the demand be able to act on applications in a quick manner. It also had to spread its wings a bit and not just be a DC inaccessible organization. So add to the complexity of the system already the only way to access the system is to come to DC. Just in recent years PTO has created four regional offices. It one and every time zone now primarily to higher examiners. We were tapping out all the engineering schools on the east coast. Both in numbers and in quality of examiners. Those who wanted to come to the PTO and stay at least for a few years after we invest quite a bit in them to be able to perform the function. We now have four other spots around the country where we could do that. So that was important for PTO just the hiring itself but having those feet in the communities have made PTO a bit more accessible as well. It's provided lots more opportunities for education lots more opportunities for applicants to understand the patent system understand when to use the patent system and frankly I'm the first to say when not to. So all of those things very very important. Last is just on the workload bit. The patent system continues to grow in terms of applications filed every year. It goes up and down and growing less quickly but certainly in the time that I've been there there's only been one or two times that it's actually dipped below growth over an annual period of time. I'm not going to go through all of this. This is at least my congressional history. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for PTO. I did a similar job for the Intellectual Property Owners Association. That was my corporate experience or at least part of my corporate experience. I worked on the American what became the American Events Act over from about 2002 to when it was enacted in 2011. Many congresses trying to address these issues. Now the theme through all these issues is about balance. There was a concern that the system was outdated. It was leaning too far in one direction and then certainly the system was not funded. So the AIA tried to address all those issues. That's the history from the 108th Congress to the 112th. We just ended the 114th. We're now on the 115th. I'm not sure what'll happen. We'll see. I think the environment and congress is ripe to address what some people say the AIA left on the table and didn't do. Particularly focused on reducing opportunities for litigation abuse and making the system more certain. A theme throughout almost every speech that I give is about legal certainty in the marketplace. To the extent that PTO is not driving towards that we're not doing our job. So again the patent litigation reform discussion is about trying to achieve that legal certainty. High quality patents the best record that is possible leaving open the opportunity for with a high bar for the public to come into the office and say it's more likely than not that at least one of these claims is not patentable and be able to in a post-grant fashion challenge those. Again it's about balance. The AIA, I just hit these big points. It did three main things. It modernized the system. My old boss Dave Capos used to say created the first 21st century patent system in the world. Transitioning the US to a first to file system aligning it with the rest of the world. Putting in a structure that made it simpler and provided more legal certainty. Creating these post-grant review proceedings there had already been an opportunity of PTO. It was not time limited. It was not cost efficient and it was in front of a single examiner. It wasn't an oppositional proceeding. So the AIA created those proceedings. There are mirrors certainly there's some mirrors to the European opposition system but this was surely a US-born time limited. More cost efficient we hope. I think we're still in implementation. We'll see. Just a few years away from the bill. But then last giving PTO actually the funds and the certainty in the funds to be able to stand up the post-grant review proceedings, invest in quality, build the IT systems that needed really build an organization that could serve its mission. I do believe in mission statements as well. We just passed the five-year anniversary of the AIA but I've already referred to it. I still think we're in implementation. I think the system is still trying to adjust. I frequently meet with stakeholders of the the Patent Trimark office mostly on the small end and some universities that decry this switch to first to verify or are concerned about additional changes in the system creating more uncertainty. I think we're still implementing and there's still more that we can do even outside of legislation. Yet there is a legislative discussion and as I usually characterize it it's what some mostly the high tech companies that I had worked with in my private life say were left on the cutting room floor. The AIA addressed issues that may have been important but weren't the issues that I was facing in the court. The last two congresses looked at a number of things to try to address and I always talk about kind of the trifecta of litigation reforms which were shift shifting height and pleading and limited discovery. All of those were part of a comprehensive reform package that failed to reach any consensus over the last two congresses. We now have many cases in front of the Supreme Court. Specifically we have the TC Heartland case which is looking at an issue that came into this discussion later venue dealing with forum shopping particularly the what people call the Eastern District of Texas problem. TC Heartland will be decided by the court the June-July timeframe. It will be a trigger for legislative activity. I think that's probably where it starts and we don't go back to a comprehensive reform. So happy to talk about all of those things as well. I'll end with again I made some some notes about what I was going to say and I was thrilled by some of the discussion as we get through so I'm looking forward to the round the table. But the current discussion at least as we talk about the patent system and what changes need to be done is about defining abuse. What do you see as abuse and what is a troll? What is a PAE? That's been a theme running through both my federal career and my private career and it's very hard to defend. You need to be careful about making changes to legislation or limiting regulatory rules that devalue the very right that may have inspired the technology and the investment in the technology in the first place. So you know as a caution this sounds strange coming from a legislative professional but we need to be cautious about legislated. We need to take into account not just all of the different players in the system but frankly all of the changes that come about just by having the dialogue just by having the discussion that list of issues I've raised there on litigation reform. Many of those issues have been addressed at least in part by the courts by our implementation at the PTO of some of the AA provisions and then by the public and public efforts as well. That's what I think I bring to the table. Not much speculation on how else universities should use their patents but eager to hear the conversation that follows. Thanks.