Source: https://webinars.ipo.org/catalog
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:13:48+00:00

Document:
CLE NOTICE: IPO will apply for Ethics credit for this webinar. Please note that not all states will approve for Ethics credit.
Conflicts of interest in litigation settings plague law firms and their clients, spurred by long term trends such as the advent of megafirms, the proliferation of corporate subsidiaries, and acquisitions. It is thought that most difficult disputes never become public. But disqualification proceedings in courtrooms are far from rare. This webinar will extract lessons for both law firms and their corporate clients on how to try to avoid this minefield, including by analyzing recent disqualification fights in both state and federal courts.
In addition to the professional responsibility issues that are implicated, the economic consequences of disqualification loom large. Law firms can suffer damage to their reputation just by being the target of a disqualification proceeding. In addition, disqualification can be financially costly.
This seminar will look at professional responsibility decisions, as well as the approaches taken by courts when considering disqualification of counsel. It will discuss whether court disqualification will generally occur solely because of an ethical violation — or whether the totality of the circumstances will be analyzed.
is senior IP litigation counsel within the Office of Legal and Administrative Affairs at Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE). She and the HPE IP litigation team are responsible for managing all IP lawsuits that are filed against or by HPE worldwide. Prior to joining HPE, Deanna was in private practice for over a decade. Deanna serves on the IPO Damages Committee.
Michael McCabe of McCabe Law LLC represents patent and trademark attorneys, registered patent agents, and other IP professionals in matters concerning ethics, discipline, and professional responsibility. His practice includes matters before the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline and the state bars of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. He is a registered patent attorney and previously was a litigation partner at two large firms.
Who can appeal an inter partes review? This webinar will answer questions about the rapidly evolving case law regarding this issue which, years after the passage of the AIA, remains partially unresolved. Our panel of experts will also address strategies for obtaining, and opposing, appellate standing.
This year the Federal Circuit has already addressed standing on three occasions: Mylan v. Research Corp. Technologies, Momenta v. Bristol-Myers, and Amerigen v. UCB. Cases appear to fall along a spectrum, with one end including cases where it appears clear that petitioners who were unsuccessful will not have standing and, on the other end, cases where it appears they surely will. Many interesting cases fall in a complicated middle ground, and a number of those involve products that require a long and expensive development process, such as pharmaceuticals, biosimilars, or aircraft engines. For petitioners in those matters trying to establish appellate standing, the challenge of showing real and immediate injury in fact can difficult to navigate.
is an assistant general counsel at Bristol-Myers Squibb, handling global patent litigations as well as business development for the IP group. Prior to joining BMS in 2012, Neal was in private practice for nine years at major law firms in New York.
is a partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. As a patent litigator, Mike serves as lead counsel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB, district court litigations, and Federal Circuit appeals. He served as lead counsel in a successful recent Federal Circuit appeal from an IPR proceeding, resulting in reversal of the PTAB’s decision and invalidation of all challenged claims. Mike also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alan Lourie of the Federal Circuit.
is of counsel at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati. Steve is a member of the firm’s post-grant review practice representing clients before the PTAB. Previously, Steve was managing partner of the Seattle office of Townsend & Townsend and an in-house counsel at two pharma companies. Steve has represented both petitioners and patent owners before the Board, and in related appeals to the Federal Circuit. He recently represented a client in an appeal of an IPR in which the Federal Circuit clarified the rights of parties joined to a petition.
This webinar will answer questions about the rapidly evolving case law regarding this issue which, years after the passage of the AIA, remains partially unresolved.
As cars quickly adopt improved connectivity, SEP owners and those in auto-related industries find themselves at the center of new developments in technology and the law. 5G SEP owners and automakers are experiencing a unique collision in business and IP cultures. The lessons that emerge will be useful for other industries that want to become part of the Internet of Things (IOT).
Can SEP owners vary royalties based on device characteristics, or the level in the distribution chain, and remain compliant with FRAND?
This webinar will help patent owners and their counsel navigate both patent prosecution and litigation issues related to patent term.
This webinar will help patent owners and their counsel navigate both patent prosecution and litigation issues related to patent term by drawing on insights from three recent Federal Circuit decisions: Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu. Some commentators believe that these decisions give patent owners a chance to obtain potentially lucrative extensions of patent term, and that they have reined in the scope of obvious-type double-patenting.
Ezra addresses what happens when one patent expires later than another related patent due to a patent term extension. Breckenridge deals with a scenario where one patent filed earlier expires later than another due to a 1995 law that changed the length of patent terms. Supernus limited the USPTO’s ability to reduce patent term adjustment (PTA) based on delays in prosecution.
Jack Brennan, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
Jack Brennan is a principal in the New York office of Fish & Richardson P.C. His practice emphasizes patent prosecution, opinions, due diligence, and client counseling in the fields of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Several years ago, Jack successfully challenged the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office calculates Patent Term Adjustment for patents resulting from national stage filings under 35 U.S.C. 371. He holds a Ph.D. in genetics.
is a senior patent attorney at Medtronic. An experienced patent prosecutor and strategist, he has had success invalidating for double patenting several patents covering patient-monitoring systems that were asserted against Medtronic.
is a patent litigator and partner in Goodwin Procter’s IP Litigation group. Nick has extensive trial and PTAB experience representing clients in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries in patent and antitrust litigation. He represents both innovator and challenger entities, is an editor of the Biosimilars Reference Guide, and co-leads a biosimilars blog, www.bigmoleculewatch.com.
This webinar will discuss important Federal Circuit decisions since TC Heartland regarding venue.
Patent venue issues continue to be the subject of much interest ‒ and litigation. This webinar will look at important Federal Circuit decisions since TC Heartland regarding venue. The panel will also give tactical tips regarding still open questions — and common battles in district courts.
John Dragseth, Fish & Richardson, P.C.
Eileen Hunter, 3M Innovative Properties Co.
is Senior IP Counsel at 3M. She manages IP disputes globally, which include patent litigation venue disputes within the U.S. She also serves on 3M’s Global Trade Secret Protection Program task force. Eileen was a Partner at Faegre Baker Daniels and clerked for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a vice chair of IPO’s Litigation Committee.
is a Partner at McDermott Will & Emery. His practice focuses on IP litigation. He successfully convinced the Federal Circuit to vacate an Eastern District of Texas ruling that ZTE, which had had contracted with a call center in Plano, Texas, could be sued in the district. In that case, the Federal Circuit clarified that, upon motion by the defendant challenging venue in a patent case, the plaintiff bore the burden of establishing proper venue.
This webinar will discuss the Supreme's Court decision last month in Helsinn v. Teva highlights.
The Supreme Court’s decision last month in Helsinn v. Teva highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the structure of technology-driven investments, joint ventures, joint development agreements, and other supply arrangements to minimize the likelihood that a conditional transaction will be characterized as an offer to sell a later-patented invention. These issues are particularly applicable to companies seeking to invest in the development of emerging technologies (or pharmaceuticals) that are not yet the subject of patent applications, and the attorneys who represent them.
Through the use of hypotheticals, our panelists will explore the impact of Helsinn and other cases related to the on-sale bar ‒ and provide important takeaways for counsel.
Our panelists will provide insights on the combined impact of these opinions, as well as practical tips on how to best navigate on-sale bar issues in light of them.
is Senior Counsel at The Dow Chemical Co. She advises clients on strategic IP matters including agreements for joint development, licensing and nondisclosure. Additionally, she has global IP responsibility for several Dow businesses, which includes portfolio management, freedom of action assessments, and general counseling. Earlier she worked as a patent attorney at Shell Oil Co. Jennifer holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. She is co-Chair of the IPO Licensing Committee.
is the head of the Technology Transactions and Technology M&A Practice Groups at Haynes & Boone. He has extensive experience counseling clients with a myriad of technology and IP-related transactions, including outsourcing, software development and licensing, and cloud computing. Randy represents both providers and customers of these services. He also provides counseling on the use and procurement of patents, and due diligence related to joint ventures. Prior to law school, Randy worked as an electrical engineer designing computer hardware and software.
Robert Isackson is a partner at Leason Ellis. He has a primary focus on IP litigation at the trial level, particularly patent and trade secret disputes and commercial disputes over technology issues. His practice includes appellate litigation, strategic counseling, providing advice and opinions on freedom to operate and litigation risks, and IP transactions. He is a member of IPO’s Trade Secrets and Amicus Brief Committees and was the author of IPO’s amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Helsinn.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.