Source: http://www.fitcheven.com/?p=5488
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 05:59:19
Document Index: 617415656

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§ 101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§103']

Webinars | Intellectual Property Law | Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery
Search by TitleAssociateCounselPartnerPatent AgentRetired PartnerTechnical Writer/Patent Scientist
Home >News >Webinars
Fitch Even Webinar: September 28, 2017
Widening Your Moat: Using Continuation Applications to Protect Commercially Successful Products
Presented by Jonathan H. Urbanek and Mark A. Borsos
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Widening Your Moat: Using Continuation Applications to Protect Commercially Successful Products,” on Thursday, September 28, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12 noon EDT.
Protecting a commercially successful product is critical for any business. Although patents can help to prevent others from utilizing covered technology, recent trends in case law and post-issuance validity challenges introduced by the American Invents Act have made it more difficult for businesses to effectively enforce patents against competitors. Continuation applications can be an important tool for bolstering patent protection for key products, providing the patent owner leverage in negotiations and enforcement.
This webinar will provide tips and strategies on how to use continuation applications to
Limit design-arounds that use similar technology
Target commercial products
Expand the scope of patent protection
Mitigate invalidity challenges
Avoid antitrust pitfalls
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners Jonathan H. Urbanek and Mark A. Borsos.
Jon focuses his IP law practice on patent preparation and prosecution and advises clients working in diverse technologies on issues including freedom-to-operate decisions, product design-arounds, and competitive technology analysis.
Mark has comprehensive experience in patent preparation, prosecution, and litigation, with a significant focus on patent post-issuance proceedings. He also assists clients with product clearance and licensing issues, as well as strategic patent portfolio creation and management.
CLE credit has been approved for California and Illinois and is pending in Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but please note registration is required. To reserve your place, please REGISTER HERE.
Recorded Webinar from August 17, 2017
Understanding AIA 102: Prior Art Exceptions and Declaration Practice
Presented by Alan E. Schiavelli
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Understanding AIA 102: Prior Art Exceptions and Declaration Practice,” on Thursday, August 17, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
More and more patent applications now being examined and granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are first-inventor-to-file applications under the America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA redefined which documents and activities constitute prior art that may be used to reject patent applications and invalidate patents.
During this webinar, Fitch Even partner Alan E. Schiavelli will provide attendees with a basic understanding of the statutory framework of 35 U.S.C. § 102, including the categories of prior art defined by the statute, the exceptions to those categories, and the manner in which the exceptions can be invoked. He will also discuss a recent Federal Circuit panel decision some see as undermining Congress’s intent in establishing the AIA’s on-sale bar.
Specific topics will include these and more:
Changes to prior public use and sale
Prior art under 102(a)(1) and exceptions
Prior art under 102(a)(2) and exceptions
Declaration practice under AIA 102
Ramifications of Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Our speaker Alan E. Schiavelli has 30 years of experience in strategically preparing and prosecuting patent applications for clients in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, as well as providing validity and infringement opinions, trademark availability studies and prosecution, and IP infringement litigation support.
A recording of this webinar is available through August 16, 2018.
View Webinar | Back to top
Recorded Webinar from June 22, 2017
The Difficulties of Being Obvious: Practical Advice for Overcoming Obviousness Rejections
Presented by Stephen S. Favakeh and Thomas A. James
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Difficulties of Being Obvious: Practical Advice for Overcoming Obviousness Rejections,” on Thursday, June 22, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
In the predictable arts, an obviousness rejection is typically based on a combination of multiple references. Attempting to overcome such a rejection can be a perplexing and frustrating experience. This is particularly true when the patent examiner is combining references to arrive at the claimed invention in what can be a highly subjective manner. Nevertheless, when it comes time to respond, there will usually be more than one way to get the job done.
Our webinar will address best practices for responding to obviousness rejections, covering these topics and more:
How to take the prevailing and latest Federal Circuit case law into account in your responses
Making effective claim amendments specifically tailored to overcome the obviousness rejection
Developing persuasive arguments in support of patentability over a combination of references
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partner Stephen S. Favakeh and patent agent Thomas A. James. For over 25 years, Steve has assisted clients with the strategic procurement and enforcement of patent and trademark rights in the U.S. and abroad, with a special focus on Japanese clients. He drafts and prosecutes patent applications as well as advises clients on IP portfolios and licensing programs, among other services.
Tom prepares and prosecutes patent applications in addition to assisting with litigation matters. He was previously a patent examiner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, working primarily in the field of electrical engineering.
A recording of this webinar is available through June 21, 2018.
Recorded webinar from May 31, 2017
The Scope of AIA’s Estoppel Provision: Are We Still Flying Blind Six Years Later?
Presented by Eric L. Broxterman
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Scope of AIA’s Estoppel Provision: Are We Still Flying Blind Six Years Later?,” on Wednesday, May 31, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Congress drafted the “estoppel” provision in the American Invents Act (AIA) to ensure that petitioners did not abuse the post-grant review procedure established by the USPTO. The estoppel provision precludes the petitioner from later challenging the same patent claim, either in the USPTO or in civil litigation, on any ground that the petitioner “raised” or “reasonably could have raised” during the post-grant review. Almost since its enactment, there has been a debate over the appropriate scope of this provision. Given that the estoppel effect was largely untested, the first participants in these proceedings flew blind to some extent. Now, roughly six years later, rulings regarding the application of the estoppel are inconsistent and tend to leave practitioners more confused and no better off than the first post-grant review trailblazers.
This webinar will provide information on what you need to know about this provision, including these topics:
Overview of the estoppel provision
The provision’s legislative history
The impact of recent decisions applying the provision
Why the provision is not scaring off petitioners of post-grant reviews
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Eric L. Broxterman. Eric’s unique blend of experience covers the entire spectrum of intellectual property law, including patent procurement, risk avoidance (invalidity and freedom-to-operate opinions), monetization (portfolio management, including licensing and transactions), and enforcement (litigation, post-grant reviews, and settlement agreements).
A recording of this webinar is available through May 30, 2018.
Recorded Webinar from April 27, 2017
Full Disclosure: Bridging the Information Gap Between Inventors and the Patent System
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Full Disclosure: Bridging the Information Gap Between Inventors and the Patent System,” on Thursday, April 27, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Patents can be extremely valuable business assets, but only as valuable as the information they convey. Before a patent can be monetized, it will be scrutinized by myriad individuals—inventors, attorneys, examiners, judges, juries, and business leaders—each of whom will interpret the patent in the light most favorable to their objective. As a patent filer, it’s vital to ensure your inventors provide clear, detailed, and accurate descriptions of their inventions so they’ll withstand scrutiny and generate the optimal return on investment.
Inventors can provide your business with a true competitive advantage, but because of the technical and legal complexities involved, attempting to capitalize on their innovations can be both expensive and risky. By educating your inventors to recognize patentable innovations, the expense can be reduced and the risk mitigated.
This webinar will provide tips and strategies on how to
Educate inventors on how to identify viable inventions and distinguish them from unpatentable ideas and concepts
Ask the right questions to get inventors to divulge the unique details of an invention
Tell a story that clearly illustrates why a patent is warranted
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Michael J. Krautner. Michael has a broad-based intellectual property law practice with over a decade of experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications, managing all stages of IP litigation, and counseling clients on complex IP issues.
A recording of this webinar is available through April 26, 2018.
Recorded Webinar from March 15, 2017
Fueling Your Business Strategy with Patents
Presented by Allen E. Hoover and George N. Dandalides
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Fueling Your Business Strategy with Patents,” on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Do you know why your competitors are obtaining all those patents? What value does a patent bring, and how do you leverage it? Patents can provide a wide range of potential benefits, from market protection to licensing to defensive value—as well as other key benefits you may not be aware of. Geared toward IP practitioners as well as business owners, our webinar will cover the following topics and more:
What a patent is, and why, when, and how to get one
The many potential benefits of patent protection
Why and how to enforce a patent, and what to expect
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Allen E. Hoover and George N. Dandalides. Allen focuses his practice on patent litigation, frequently serving as lead counsel on complex infringement cases involving a broad spectrum of technologies. He also assists clients with patent portfolio management, licensing and other issues. George currently focuses his IP law practice on domestic and international patent preparation and prosecution, leveraging his background in physics and computer technology to assist clients in a variety of high-tech industries including telecommunications, electronics, and computer hardware, software, and architecture.
A recording of this webinar is available through March 14, 2018.
Recorded Webinar from January 25, 2017
Alice in Chains? Lessons Learned from Recent Federal Circuit Opinions on Patentable Subject Matter
Presented by Eric L. Broxterman and David A. Gosse
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Alice in Chains? Lessons Learned from Recent Federal Circuit Opinions on Patentable Subject Matter,” on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
The Federal Circuit has overruled several district court opinions finding patents invalid for lack of patentable subject matter, most recently in Enfish v. Microsoft, BASCOM v. AT&T Mobility, and McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America. This webinar will review these and other Federal Circuit opinions that have begun to define the boundaries of “abstract ideas” under the Supreme Court’s Alice test.
In addition to discussing applicable Federal CIrcuit cases, our presenters will also cover these topics:
The test for patentable subject matter under Alice v. CLS Bank
Considerations when responding to a motion for dismissal based on Alice
How claim construction can alter the analysis of patentable subject matter
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners Eric L. Broxterman and David A. Gosse. Eric is a litigator with extensive trial experience in primarily patent infringement cases. He also counsels clients on patent prosecution, infringement/invalidity opinions, and IP transactional issues. Dave has a diverse IP law practice encompassing both the acquisition and the enforcement of patent rights, with a particular emphasis on complex patent litigation.
A recording of this webinar is available through January 24, 2018.
Recorded Webinar from November 17, 2016
Determining the Value of One Patented Feature: A Behavioral Alternative to a Consumer Survey
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Determining the Value of One Patented Feature: A Behavioral Alternative to a Consumer Survey,” presented by Jacob Jacoby and Alison Aubry Richards and moderated by Edward W. Gray Jr. The webinar will take place on Thursday, November 17, 2016, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
Recent Federal Circuit decisions have made it more difficult to prove damages in litigation. This is especially true when the infringed patent relates to just one feature in a product with multiple features. Before a patent owner can obtain damages based on the entire market value of a product (patented and unpatented components sold together), the patent owner may be required to prove that the patented feature is the basis for consumer demand for the entire product. Other decisions require the patent holder to apportion the value of the whole product down to the patented feature.
Whether a damages expert’s opinion can meet these requirements is a critical question for all patent litigants. Ultimately, the persuasiveness and reliability of the factual data on consumer demand for a patented feature underlying the damages case can determine the financial outcome of the case.
This webinar will cover these topics and more:
Why proving consumer demand is key to receiving monetary damages
The shortcomings of typical survey approaches to measuring consumer demand
An alternative behavioral methodology for reliably measuring consumer demand
Our speakers will be Jacob “Jack” Jacoby, Ph.D., and Fitch Even partner Alison Aubry Richards.
Jack is President of Jacoby IP Research and an award-winning author widely recognized for his expertise in IP survey research. He has been Merchant’s Council Professor of Consumer Behavior and Retail Management at NYU’s Stern School of Business since 1981.
Alison is a trial lawyer who has worked on a wide range of complex, high-stakes patent litigations involving a variety of technologies and industries. She has brought and defended a number of Daubert motions related to damages expert opinions and has presented and cross-examined damages experts at trial. Alison also counsels clients on technology licensing.
Our moderator will be Fitch Even partner Edward W. Gray Jr. Ed currently focuses his practice on IP evaluation and strategy, trade secret programs, licensing, trademark prosecution, and IP litigation.
A recording of this webinar is available through November 16, 2017.
Recorded Webinar from October 12, 2016
Recent Updates in Design Patent Law
Presented by Calista J. Mitchell and Joseph H. Herron
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Recent Updates in Design Patent Law,” on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Understanding the latest developments in case law and USPTO examination standards is important to drafting effective design patent applications. This webinar will address numerous current issues in U.S. design patent law. It may be of interest to those who seek to broadly protect products with design patents, as well as those who draft design patent applications, litigate design patents, or prepare freedom-to-operate or patentability analyses for design patent applications.
Our speakers will cover these topics and more:
Recent court decisions involving design patents
The role of obviousness in patentability and invalidity determinations
Current trends in examination by the USPTO
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners Calista J. Mitchell and Joseph H. Herron. Calista focuses her practice primarily on domestic and global patent prosecution and on freedom-to-operate, patent validity, and patentability opinions. Joe represents clients in complex patent prosecution, patent litigation, post-issuance matters, and opinion work, as well as other IP matters, in the U.S. and abroad.
A recording of this webinar is available through October 11, 2017.
Recorded Webinar from August 30, 2016
European Patent Filing Strategies: Choosing the Appropriate Option
Presented by Rudy I. Kratz
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a free webinar, “European Patent Filing Strategies: Choosing the Appropriate Option,” presented by Rudy I. Kratz and Tony Wray. The webinar will take place on Tuesday, August 30, 2016, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
A number of patent filing strategies are available in Europe. Patent applications may be filed at the European Patent Office (EPO) and at national patent offices such as the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA). Utility model applications are another form of intellectual property protection that can be pursued in certain countries. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages, and some approaches may be more appropriate in certain circumstances based on cost and other concerns. Recent developments may also have an impact on which filing strategy makes the most sense.
Our webinar will address the following topics:
Summary of filing considerations at the EPO, UKIPO, and DPMA
Advantages and disadvantages of specific filing strategies
Effect of the UK vote to leave the European Union and the status of the Unitary Patent
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partner Rudy I. Kratz and Optimus Patents Ltd. director and founder Tony Wray. Rudy counsels clients seeking patent and design protection inside and outside the U.S., assisting them in developing and implementing international IP protection strategies. He also manages Fitch Even's relationships with an extensive network of leading firms around the globe, working with international agents in all regions of the world. Tony is the founder of Optimus Patents, a law firm providing services on all aspects of patent law from innovation to portfolio management, with offices throughout the South of England. He previously spent 12 years at Motorola as Research Project Manager and as European Patent Portfolio Manager. A Motorola “distinguished inventor,” Tony is a named inventor on 20+ granted patents.
Recorded Webinar from May 25, 2016
The Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Federal Remedy at Last
Presented by Thomas F. Lebens
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Federal Remedy at Last,” on Wednesday, May 25, 2016, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On May 11, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act—a federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation—into law. This will mean a shake-up for U.S. trade secrets law, which for years has been protected by a patchwork of state laws under various enactments of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Federal courts have had to enforce these laws through their diversity jurisdiction, when available. A single federal statute will move us toward applying the law uniformly nationwide, and trade secret claims could be filed in federal court. The new law, however, will not completely replace state trade secrets law, but will coexist with it. Protections for trade secrets will be more on balance with those available to patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Our webinar will address these major provisions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act:
Ex parte seizure of property to prevent dissemination of trade secrets
Preemption of state law prohibiting restraints on employment
Whistleblower protections for reporting trade secret misappropriation
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Thomas F. Lebens. Since 1991 Tom has served clients in preparing and prosecuting patent and trademark applications, including appeals, post-grant review, and interferences. He also counsels clients in intellectual property and business strategy; licensing issues; infringement and validity analysis; patentability, infringement, and validity opinions; and copyright matters.
Recorded Webinar from April 28, 2016
Prosecuting the Unexpected Ratio: Advanced Lessons in Patent Prosecution and Claim Drafting
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Prosecuting the Unexpected Ratio: Advanced Lessons in Patent Prosecution and Claim Drafting,” presented by Jeffrey A. Chelstrom. The webinar will take place on Thursday, April 28, 2016, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Patent practitioners who focus on compositions, materials, and other non-mechanical inventions are frequently presented with unique challenges when distinguishing prior art. Often a composition of multiple components may have similar or even overlapping ranges of those components with the prior art. How does the patent prosecutor protect such inventions?
Alternative ways to draft claims covering compositions, materials, and other non-mechanical inventions
How to draft patent applications for these inventions to distinguish close prior art
How to use unexpected results and evidence of criticality to overcome rejections
This presentation will be the second in an occasional series of “master classes” for experienced IP practitioners, patent owners, and others entrenched in the world of IP who already possess at least a basic understanding of patents and patent claims. It will be of interest to those who analyze and litigate patents as well as those who draft patent applications.
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Jeffrey A. Chelstrom. Jeff has extensive experience in chemical patent preparation and prosecution in the U.S. and abroad dealing with food chemistry, adhesives, polymers, lubricants, fuels, and petroleum inventions. He also regularly assists clients with patent portfolio management and freedom-to-operate issues.
Recorded Webinar from March 31, 2016
Pitfalls in Patent Licensing: The Litigator’s Perspective
Presented by David A. Gosse
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Pitfalls in Patent Licensing: The Litigator’s Perspective,” presented by Alison Aubry Richards and David A. Gosse. The webinar will take place on Thursday, March 31, 2016, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Patent licenses must be drafted with attention to both present needs and a variety of future possibilities. In retrospect, many licenses are flawed in predictable ways. This webinar will cover lessons learned from litigation matters involving many different licenses and ways the license language affected the outcomes of these matters.
Our presenters will cover the following topics and more:
Functional parts of a patent license (e.g., how to define the licensed products and licensed entities)
Enforceability of the license (e.g., exhaustion)
Changes in circumstances that affect the scope of the license (e.g., change of control)
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Alison Aubry Richards and David A. Gosse. Dave has a diverse IP law practice encompassing both the acquisition and the enforcement of patent rights, with a particular emphasis on complex patent litigation.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2016
So You Think You Know Patent Claims? Advanced Lessons in Patent Drafting and Analysis
Presented by Steven G. Parmelee and Allen E. Hoover
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “So You Think You Know Patent Claims? Advanced Lessons in Patent Drafting and Analysis,” presented by Steven G. Parmelee and Allen E. Hoover. The webinar will take place on Thursday, February 25, 2016, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
Even if you have practiced IP law for many years, or are otherwise well-versed in what’s involved in patent drafting, you may be surprised by what you don’t know about patent claims. And what you don’t know might hurt you.
Our presenters will cover the following topics:
The right and wrong way to use dependent claims to strengthen a patent
How to avoid claim language that can impair the patent holder’s rights
What you may not know about alternative claim language in patent claims
This webinar will be the first in an occasional series of “master classes” for experienced IP practitioners, patent owners, and others entrenched in the world of IP who already possess at least a basic understanding of patents and patent claims. It will be of interest to both those who analyze and litigate patents and those who draft patent applications.
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners Steven G. Parmelee and Allen E. Hoover. Steve has extensive experience in complex patent preparation and prosecution in the U.S. and abroad, and has assisted clients with patent portfolio management, freedom-to-operate issues, and transactions for over 35 years. Allen focuses his practice on patent litigation and has served as lead counsel on a substantial number of complex infringement cases involving a broad spectrum of technologies. He also assists clients with patent portfolio management and licensing and other IP issues.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM January 21, 2016
The Newly Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Making Sense of the Changes
Presented by Joseph F. Marinelli
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Newly Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Making Sense of the Changes,” presented by Joseph F. Marinelli. The webinar will take place on Thursday, January 21, 2016, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
On December 1, 2015, significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. These changes are intended to make civil litigation more efficient by changing early case management procedures and discovery planning, clarifying the scope of discovery, and revamping the rules regarding the preservation of electronically stored information.
In this webinar, we will take a closer look at the December rule changes, discussing what you need to know and the practical impact the rules may have on your practice, covering the following topics and more:
Reorganization of Rule 26(b)(1) to bring proportionality factors to the forefront of scope considerations and elimination
Change to Rule 26(d) that now permits a party to issue document requests in advance of parties’ Rule 26(f) discovery conference
Revision of Rule 34 to require more specific objections and responses to document requests
Revamp of Rule 37(e) to better address ESI preservation and loss
Elimination of Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms leading to a potential change in pleading requirements in patent infringement suits
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Joseph F. Marinelli. Joe is an IP litigator with more than 15 years of hands-on courtroom experience and a diverse intellectual property law practice covering all aspects of IP creation, management, enforcement, and licensing. Joe has extensive experience litigating in popular patent venues including the Northern District of California, the Western District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Texas, as well as representing clients in post-grant procedures before the USPTO.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM December 2, 2015
Navigating Patent Potholes Along the FDA’s Proposed ANDA / 505(b)(2) Pathway
Presented by Kendrew H. Colton
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Navigating Patent Potholes Along the FDA’s Proposed ANDA / 505(b)(2) Pathway,” presented by Kendrew H. Colton and James A. Zak. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
The FDA has released new rules regarding the procedures for approval of ANDA and 505(b)(2) applications implementing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in turn, has created new procedures and other ways by which they cancel, modify, and administer patent rights. The USPTO’s actions have created potholes along the FDA-proposed pathways for pharmaceuticals companies and generics manufacturers attempting to maintain monopolies. These USPTO activities may also provide an express lane for new startups in the pharmaceutical space.
During our webinar, we will discuss these topics and more:
Newly listed patents in the Orange Book and the ability to catch up to first applicants
Breaking through settlement roadblocks with AIA post-grant procedures
Newly listed and issued patents downshifting ANDAs into tentative approvals
Express lane for 505(b)(2) applicants
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Kendrew H. Colton and James A. Zak. Ken has extensive IP counseling and litigation experience, with a focus on designing strategies to achieve market exclusivity and freedom to operate for clients working with chemical and biochemical technologies. James chiefly focuses his practice on the intersection of intellectual property and FDA law, often working with startups in FDA-regulated industries to develop and align their IP and FDA market approval strategies while simultaneously developing robust patent portfolios.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM October 29, 2015
Presented by Eric L. Broxterman and Joseph F. Marinelli
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Current and Emerging Trends in Patent Law: Cases to Know and Cases to Watch,” presented by Eric L. Broxterman and Joseph F. Marinelli. The webinar will take place on Thursday, October 29, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Patent-eligible subject matter under Alice—DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com
The Supreme Court’s new claim indefiniteness standard in Nautilus—Dow Chemical Co. v. NOVA Chemicals Corp.
Expert apportionment method for proving damages by reasonable royalty—Summit 6 v. Samsung
Standards for injunctive relief—Apple v. Samsung
Good-faith belief of invalidity as a defense to inducement—Commil USA v. Cisco Systems
Appellate standard for claim construction—TEVA Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz
Patent exhaustion based on foreign sales—Lexmark v. Impression
Approval of biosimilars—Amgen v. Sandoz
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners Eric L. Broxterman and Joseph F. Marinelli. Eric is a litigator with extensive trial experience in patent cases and a registered patent attorney who also counsels clients on patent prosecution, infringement/invalidity opinions, and IP transactional issues. Joe has a diverse intellectual property law practice covering all aspects of IP creation, management, enforcement, and licensing, with a particular emphasis on complex litigation.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM September 30, 2015
Updates on Design Patent Law: The Hague Agreement and U.S. Design Patent Enforcement
Presented by Jon A. Birmingham
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Updates on Design Patent Law: The Hague Agreement and U.S. Design Patent Enforcement,” presented by Jon A. Birmingham and Conor S. Hunt. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, September 30, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
In May 2015, U.S. patent laws were amended to implement provisions of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs. U.S.-based applicants can now seek design protection in over 60 countries by filing a single international design application.
The first half of our webinar will cover the following:
An overview of the system under the Hague Agreement
Filing requirements under this system
Cost comparison with traditional foreign filing processes
The webinar will continue with a discussion of enforcement of design patents in the U.S., including these topics:
The impact of recent design patent cases on patent prosecution
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Jon A. Birmingham and Conor S. Hunt. For 15 years, Jon has represented a wide range of clients in intellectual property litigation, opinion matters, and complex patent prosecution matters, including the protection of design patents. Conor focuses his practice on domestic and international patent prosecution involving mechanical and e-commerce technologies, as well as on patent evaluation, portfolio management, product clearance, and legal opinions.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM August 26, 2015
Kimble v. Marvel: Practical Tips for Extending Licensing Agreements Beyond Patent Expiration
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Kimble v. Marvel: Practical Tips for Extending Licensing Agreements Beyond Patent Expiration,” presented by Christine A. Pompa. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, August 26, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On June 22, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, upholding the long-standing rule that prohibits a patent holder from charging royalties for the use of an invention after the underlying patent has expired. As a result, patent holders may want to consider ways to negotiate competitive, mutually beneficial, and enforceable license agreements that exist beyond the term of the underlying patent.
During the webinar, we will discuss the following and more:
The case law leading up to the opinion in Kimble v. Marvel
A summary of the opinion
Tips and strategies for drafting licensing agreements that extend royalty fee payments beyond the life of a patent
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Christine A. Pompa. Christine has extensive litigation and trial experience in patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright cases. She also provides clients with legal opinions on non-infringement and invalidity, as well as IP- and technology-related agreements, including licensing agreements, product terms and conditions, service agreements, and privacy policies.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM June 24, 2015
The Two Faces of Establishing Patentability of a New Chemical
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Two Faces of Establishing Patentability of a New Chemical,” presented by James A. Zak. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, June 24, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
To be a patentable invention, a chemical compound must be new and non-obvious. To establish that the compound is non-obvious, a lead compound is selected in the prior art, and the new compound is compared to the lead compound to determine if the new compound is merely an obvious modification. A lead compound is selected by one of two methods, which differ with respect to the rationale used to identify the lead compound and how allegations of obviousness can be refuted. Given the critical role of the lead compound to the non-obviousness determination, when attempting to patent a new compound, one must be mindful of how the lead compound will be selected.
During this webinar, we will discuss the following:
Methods of selecting a lead compound
Assumptions made based on structural similarity and how to overcome them
Why what is believed about a rationally selected lead compound is more important than its real properties
How to make others select the lead compound of your choosing
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney James A. Zak. James chiefly focuses his practice on the intersection of intellectual property and FDA law, often working with startups in FDA-regulated industries to develop and align their IP and FDA market approval strategies while simultaneously developing robust patent portfolios.
Recorded Webinar from May 27, 2015
Strategies for the Use of Expert Evidence in Post-Issuance Proceedings
Presented by Mark A. Borsos
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Strategies for the Use of Expert Evidence in Post-Issuance Proceedings,” presented by Mark A. Borsos. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 27, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) and other post-issuance proceedings have become an increasingly popular means for accused infringers to challenge the validity of issued patents. While IPRs, post-grant reviews (PGR), and reexaminations may be faster and less-expensive alternatives to district court litigation, limitations on discovery and presentation of evidence in patent office proceedings raise concerns that are not present in the average litigation case.
Although expert evidence is not required in every case, decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board thus far have indicated that expert testimony is often crucial to success and that grant or denial of a petition for post-grant proceedings can hinge upon the nature and structure of expert testimony. As a result, eliciting and attacking expert testimony can be an extremely important part of such proceedings.
During this webinar, we will discuss strategies for the following:
Determining when expert evidence can assist your case
Eliciting and using expert evidence
Defending expert depositions
Challenging your opponent’s expert
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Mark A. Borsos. Mark has comprehensive litigation experience in discovery, summary judgment briefing, pretrial preparation, settlement negotiations, and trial. Mark’s practice also includes patent preparation and prosecution, with a unique focus on USPTO reissue and reexamination patent proceedings.
Recorded Webinar from April 22, 2015
Practical and Ethical Issues in Compensating Fact Witnesses: Are the Benefits Worth the Headache?
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Practical and Ethical Issues in Compensating Fact Witnesses: Are the Benefits Worth the Headache?” presented by Eric L. Broxterman. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Not only expert witnesses request payment for their time preparing for trial and their testimony, as once was the trend. Now fact witnesses with special knowledge about the case sometimes expect to be compensated as well. Although rules regarding compensation of fact witnesses have loosened over the years, such payments are not unconstrained. ABA Model Rule 3.4 (b) and the Federal Anti-Gratuity Statute provide some guidance on this topic, but have been criticized for being too vague.
In this webinar, you will learn practical advice on how to structure payments to fact witnesses, how to disclose such payments to opposing counsel, and other procedures that will not only help deflect the unavoidable appearance of impropriety associated from such payments, but will also help prevent sanctions from the court.
During the webinar, we will discuss the following:
An overview and interpretation of rules and statutes relating to compensation of fact witnesses
Exemplary legal opinions dealing with such compensation
Structuring and disclosing payments
Sanctions and other ramifications if compensation is done incorrectly
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Eric L. Broxterman. Eric is a litigator with extensive trial experience in patent cases. A registered patent attorney, he also counsels clients on patent prosecution, infringement/invalidity opinions, and IP transactional issues.
RECORDED WEBINAR FROM March 26, 2015
PTAB Trial Practice: Insights from a Former USPTO Judge
Presented by Kenneth W. Hairston
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “PTAB Trial Practice: Insights from a Former USPTO Judge,” presented by Fitch Even counsel and former Administrative Patent Judge Kenneth W. Hairston. The webinar will take place on Thursday, March 26, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
With the rise of post-issuance proceedings, an increasing number of lawyers are presenting to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with little prior experience. Moreover, the makeup of the PTAB has changed significantly in the past four years, tripling in size from about 75 judges to over 225 judges, many of whom lack substantial judicial experience. That, along with the large backlog of ex parte and inter partes cases pending before the PTAB, can greatly affect post-issuance proceedings. So what should petitioners and patent holders know as they approach a post-issuance review? And what’s behind the relatively high fees in these proceedings?
During this program, Ken Hairston will share his insights on trial practice before the PTAB, addressing these topics and more:
How to gain a judge’s attention in a post-issuance proceeding
How the backlog of PTAB cases may impact your post-issuance proceeding
How to work with PTAB trial practice rules to save time and money
Sound, effective approaches to conducting the litigation
Our speaker Ken Hairston has provided IP law counsel for nearly 40 years, including 23 years serving as an Administrative Patent Judge at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (now known as the PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Drawing upon the insight gained from his judicial work, Ken currently counsels clients on complex patent prosecution matters and patent office appeals, as well as administrative post-grant patent challenges.
Recorded Webinar from January 29, 2015
Utility Model Patents: Use and Enforcement in Global Patent Practice
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Utility Model Patents: Use and Enforcement in Global Patent Practice,” presented by Jonathan C. Hughley. The webinar will take place on Thursday, January 29, 2015, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
In a number of countries outside the U.S., alternative types of patent protection are available to inventors. While many attorneys and inventors are aware of the standard patent, the utility model patent (also known by alternative names in various countries) is less recognized and less frequently used. However, the use of these patents is rapidly expanding in some countries and can be an effective tool in an intellectual property portfolio. Understanding how these patents are obtained and enforced can be essential to companies and inventors with a global presence.
During this webinar, we will cover these topics and more:
General concepts common to utility model patent applications
Current trends in filings of utility model patent applications worldwide and country by country
Basic guidelines and distinguishing features of utility model patent applications in China and other countries
Prosecution and enforcement of these applications in select countries
Useful practice tips
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney Jonathan C. Hughley. Jonathan currently focuses his IP law practice on patent preparation and prosecution, assisting clients that are global leaders in a variety of industries. In addition, he has participated on litigation teams working to protect, enforce, and defend clients’ intellectual property rights. Jonathan also counsels clients on IP-related aspects of advertising, marketing, and promotions.
Recorded Webinar from December 17, 2014
The Lure of Functional Claiming: Benefits, Pitfalls, and Recent Court Decisions
Presented by Stephen S. Favakeh and Jonathan H. Urbanek
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Lure of Functional Claiming: Benefits, Pitfalls, and Recent Court Decisions,” presented by Stephen S. Favakeh and Jonathan H. Urbanek. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, December 17, 2014, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
Patent attorneys have historically used functional claim language in an effort to cover what an invention does rather than what it is. The use of functional language in a claim presents potential advantages over strictly reciting structure, but also presents potential risks during prosecution and litigation. Understanding how the USPTO and courts are currently evaluating functional claim language is essential to writing and prosecuting patent applications that issue with valuable and enforceable claims.
During the webinar, we will cover these topics and more:
Functional claim language: history, examples, and advantages
Functional claim-drafting techniques for maximum impact at the USPTO
Cases including Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. and their impact on the interpretation of functional claim terms during litigation
Writing and prosecuting applications to survive the storm of litigation and post-grant proceedings
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Stephen S. Favakeh and Jonathan H. Urbanek. For over 20 years, Steve has assisted clients in the strategic procurement and enforcement of patent and trademark rights in the U.S. and abroad, with a special focus on Japanese clients. Jon focuses his IP law practice on patent preparation and prosecution and advises clients working in diverse technologies on issues including freedom-to-operate decisions, product design-arounds, and competitive technology analysis.
Recorded Webinar from October 29, 2014
Product Packaging and Labeling: An Overview of Current Legal Principles
Presented by John M. Naber and John E. Lyhus
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Product Packaging and Labeling: An Overview of Current Legal Principles,” presented by John M. Naber and John E. Lyhus. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, October 29, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Marketplace promotion of products can involve not only attractive packaging designs, but also a mix of labeling concerns including product performance claims, regulatory compliance, required disclosures, and identification of intellectual property rights. Product promotion not only drives sales, but seeks to develop brand loyalty and provide consumers with useful information about the product. As such, product packaging and labeling is tied to legal issues involving compliance with one or more government agencies, marking of IP rights, industry standards, and more.
During this webinar, we will provide an overview of current legal issues to consider when developing product packaging and will cover these topics:
A summary of issue spotting of product packaging
Marking product IP
Trademark use as a source identifier of a product
State and federal government compliance issues for food and medical products
Digital and print labeling
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners John M. Naber and John E. Lyhus. John Naber is a licensed patent attorney with extensive experience in patent prosecution, clearance, and opinion work. He also counsels clients on issues that arise in corporate advertising, marketing, and product labeling and marking. John Lyhus focuses his IP practice primarily on trademark clearance and prosecution, enforcement, and global brand protection. He also represents clients in domain name dispute resolution, unfair competition, and copyright matters.
Recorded Webinar from September 25, 2014
Asserting Patents and Responding to Threats in the Age of State Anti-Troll Legislation
Presented by Edward E. Clair and David A. Gosse
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Asserting Patents and Responding to Threats in the Age of State Anti-Troll Legislation,” presented by Edward E. Clair and David A. Gosse. The webinar will take place on Thursday, September 25, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Patent law is a subject of exclusive federal jurisdiction, but many states have recently passed laws attempting to restrict patent demand letters. These laws are not strictly limited to “patent trolls,” although aggressive enforcement tactics are their raison d'être. Eighteen states have now signed acts into law defining what must be included in a cease and desist, royalty demand, or license offer letter if it relates to patents. Illinois recently joined this group of states with its Public Law 98-1119. Almost a dozen other states and Congress are considering similar legislation. As a result, patent holders have new considerations to take into account when they want to enforce their patents. Accused infringers have some extra rights and tactics, but those vary from state to state. In addition, the courts have begun to weigh in on these new laws—both at the state and federal levels.
During this webinar, we will cover the following:
Review state laws restricting patent demand letters (including a reference chart)
Summarize how these laws interact with federal exclusive jurisdiction over patent law
Evaluate strategic implications of these state laws, when sending or receiving patent assertion letters
Our speakers are Fitch Even attorneys Edward E. Clair and David A. Gosse. Ed has a diverse intellectual property law practice covering all aspects of IP creation, management, enforcement, and licensing. Dave’s practice includes invention and patentability analysis, patent drafting and prosecution, and a special focus on IP litigation.
Recorded Webinar from August 28, 2014
Provisionally Patented: The Strategic Use of Effective Provisional Applications
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Provisionally Patented: The Strategic Use of Effective Provisional Applications,” presented by Michael J. Krautner and Conor S. Hunt. The webinar will take place on Thursday, August 28, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. PDT / 10:00 a.m. MDT / 11:00 a.m. CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
U.S. provisional patent applications have very few formal requirements. Accordingly, they can be an effective tool used by inventors, businesses, and their patent attorneys to quickly obtain an early filing date at little cost, which can be particularly useful with the current first-to-file system under the America Invents Act. But although provisionals are subject to few requirements of form, to have any value they still must satisfy the same legal disclosure requirements of nonprovisional applications. An effectual provisional application filing strategy should therefore find the right balance of speed and efficiency without sacrificing quality of disclosure.
Our webinar will cover these topics as they relate to provisional applications:
Pros and cons of filing provisional applications
Practical considerations for filing
Strategies for using provisional applications to build a patent portfolio
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Michael J. Krautner and Conor S. Hunt. Michael has a broad-based practice with significant experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications, managing all stages of IP litigation, and counseling clients on complex IP issues. Conor focuses his practice on domestic and international patent prosecution involving mechanical and e-commerce technologies, as well as on patent evaluation, portfolio management, product clearance, and legal opinions.
Recorded Webinar from July 24, 2014
Are Abstract Technological Advances Patentable? Go Ask Alice
Presented by Steven G. Parmelee and Nicholas T. Peters
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Are Abstract Technological Advances Patentable? Go Ask Alice,” presented by Steven G. Parmelee and Nicholas T. Peters. The webinar will take place on Thursday, July 24, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
As amply suggested by the many opinions offered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Alice v CLS Bank, in recent times, assessing patent claims for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 has seemed to entail uncertainty. The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice confirmed that uncertainty, but in holding a financial software-related patent not patent-eligible, did the Supreme Court lead us out of the darkness and into the light?
A brief recounting of recent precedent and administrative guidelines addressing patent eligibility
A review of the immediate precedential gestation of the Alice decision
How Alice makes some things clear
Whether we are any closer to understanding what is unduly “abstract”
What content those drafting patent applications can add to their claims to increase the patent eligibility of a claim that may include abstract subject matter
Our speakers are Fitch Even partners Steven G. Parmelee and Nicholas T. Peters. Steve has extensive experience in complex patent preparation and prosecution in the U.S. and abroad, and has assisted clients with global patent portfolio management, freedom-to-operate issues, complex litigation, and transactions for over 35 years. In his wide-ranging IP practice, Nick uses his litigation and USPTO experience combined with his technical background in physics, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering to assist his clients in securing and protecting their IP assets.
Recorded Webinar from June 26, 2014
Joint Infringement and Indefiniteness After Limelight and Nautilus
Presented by Eric L. Broxterman and Paul B. Henkelmann
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Joint Infringement and Indefiniteness After Limelight and Nautilus,” presented by Eric L. Broxterman and Paul B. Henkelmann. The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 26, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions that continue the Court’s trend of decisions unfavorable to patentees. In Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, the Supreme Court reversed a divided Federal Circuit that had held a party may be liable for inducement of infringement despite the lack of a single direct infringer. As a result, where the performance of a patented method can be divided between two or more actors, infringement may be avoided.
In Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., the Court held that the Federal Circuit’s application of its “insolubly ambiguous” standard for claim indefiniteness “breeds lower court confusion” and held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims fail to inform with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
These cases have important implications for businesses, patentees, and practitioners.
Brief overview of joint infringement and indefiniteness precedent
The Limelight and Nautilus opinions and holdings
Implications of the Limelight and Nautilus decisions
Practical considerations going forward
Our speakers are Fitch Even attorneys Eric L. Broxterman and Paul B. Henkelmann. Eric has a broad-based intellectual property law practice, with a particular emphasis on litigation. He counsels clients in a variety of industries on patent prosecution, infringement/invalidity opinions, IP transactional issues, and IP procurement. Paul focuses his practice on patent litigation, patent procurement, and IP counseling. He has substantial experience in both asserting and defending against patent infringement claims in the federal courts.
Recorded Webinar from May 29, 2014
Octane Fitness and Highmark: The Supreme Court’s New Standard for Finding a Patent Infringement Case "Exceptional"
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Octane Fitness and Highmark: The Supreme Court’s New Standard for Finding a Patent Infringement Case ‘Exceptional,’” presented by Jared E. Hedman. The webinar will take place on Thursday, May 29, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On April 29, in two cases, Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions that significantly alter the Federal Circuit’s rigid standards for establishing and appealing an exceptional case and a related award for attorneys’ fees. The Court’s decisions arguably both ease the requirements necessary for the grant of attorneys’ fees and make it more difficult to challenge a district court’s decision on appeal. As such, the two decisions immediately impact litigation strategies for both pending and contemplated patent infringement cases.
A review of exceptional case and attorney fee-shifting precedent
The Octane Fitness and Highmark opinions and holdings
The effects of the decisions—who is potentially impacted and how
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Jared E. Hedman. Jared is a trial lawyer who, in addition to a wide range of patent infringement litigation, has represented clients in intellectual property disputes involving breach of contract, trade secrets, and copyright ownership.
Recorded Webinar from April 30, 2014
Intellectual Property as Business Asset: Where Is the Value and How Do You Find It?
Presented by Karl R. Fink
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, "Intellectual Property as Business Asset: Where Is the Value and How Do You Find It?", presented by Karl R. Fink. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
The constantly changing landscape of intellectual property law is dizzying, but the answer to the fundamental question of where is the value of intellectual property—and how do you find it—is always at the back of our minds. This presentation will review, considering the current state of the law, where the value of intellectual property is found, or not found, and will provide suggestions on determining whether a business, or its products and services, could benefit from intellectual property protection.
During the webinar, we will discuss these topics and more:
What do patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights protect?
What kinds of intellectual property are valuable, and why?
What kinds of enterprises realize substantial economic value from intellectual property, and why?
How do you determine whether a product or service should be protected with intellectual property?
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Karl R. Fink. Karl has been a trial lawyer since 1981, handling hundreds of lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country. His practice includes all aspects of intellectual property litigation, creation, management, enforcement and licensing, with particular emphasis on patent litigation.
Recorded Webinar from March 20, 2014
Trade Secret Implications of the America Invents Act: Can the Coca-Cola® Formula Now Be Patented?
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Trade Secret Implications of the America Invents Act: Can the Coca-Cola® Formula Now Be Patented?”, presented by Thomas F. Lebens. The webinar will take place on Thursday, March 20, 2014, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
As we pass the one-year anniversary of full implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA), we mark a year of significant changes to the practice of patent law. However, seldom discussed are the profound effects of the AIA on patent law’s sibling—trade secret law. This presentation will explore the AIA from the perspective of the trade secret owner when contemplating whether to patent an invention or to hold its development as a trade secret.
During the webinar, we will
recount the pre-AIA relationship between trade secret law and patent law,
summarize and contrast AIA provisions defining prior art, and
explore how the decision to patent (or not) made today by the trade secret owner may differ from the pre-AIA decision.
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Thomas F. Lebens. Since 1991, Tom has focused his practice on the preparation and prosecution of patent, trademark, and copyright applications, including appeals, post-grant review, and interferences. He also regularly assists clients with sophisticated IP and business strategy, infringement and validity analysis and opinions, licensing issues, and IP portfolio development and management.
Recorded Webinar from February 27, 2014
"Configured to"—Patent Claim Friend or Foe?
Presented by Steven G. Parmelee
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Configured to”—Patent Claim Friend or Foe?, presented by Steven G. Parmelee. The webinar will take place on Thursday, February 27, 2014, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
The number of issued U.S. patents having at least one independent claim that includes the phrase “configured to” has increased six-fold since the year 2000. But what does that expression really mean? To date, most of the time the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gives full weight to the features characterized by that expression. In a minority of decisions, however, the Board holds otherwise. What makes the difference? And in a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Chief Judge Rader argued that no patentable weight need be given to claim expressions that describe how a device is configured to perform a particular task. Has the PTAB been wrong most of the time?
During this webinar we will address these topics and more:
A brief history of “configured to”
A brief related history of functional claim language
Possible substitutes for “configured to”
Possible drafting solutions to avoid bad results with “configured to”
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Steven G. Parmelee. For over 35 years, Steve has assisted clients with global patent portfolio management, freedom-to-operate issues, complex litigation, and transactions. Having prepared well over 1,000 U.S. patent applications, he has extensive experience in complex patent preparation and prosecution in the U.S. and abroad.
Recorded Webinar from January 23, 2014
Advertising and Promotions: Basic Legal Principles in Today's Fast-Paced Digital World
Presented by Sherri N. Blount and Nicole L. Little
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, "Advertising and Promotions: Basic Legal Principles in Today's Fast-Paced Digital World," presented by Sherri N. Blount and Nicole L. Little. The webinar will take place on Thursday, January 23, 2014, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
Although today's marketplace is bursting with opportunities to advertise and promote through more social media outlets and mobile apps than most people can keep track of, the same basic legal principles apply to advertising and promotions today as they did 50 years ago, albeit with a few new rules and exceptions. This webinar will provide an overview of the legal principles you should keep in mind whether advertising or promoting in print or digitally. We will discuss the following topics and more:
A brief synopsis of claim substantiation, disclosures, comparative claims, and endorsements
A summary of lottery law, consideration, sweepstakes rules, and contests
Important considerations that apply specifically to digital advertisements and promotions, such as
complying with the law when running your promotion on popular social media platforms
making sure your dot-com disclosures are accessible and understandable
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partner Sherri N. Blount and attorney Nicole L. Little. Sherri has extensive experience as a transactional and regulatory attorney whose practice focuses on the intersection of intellectual property, media, and advertising and promotions law. Nikki divides her practice between IP litigation and transactional work. In addition to patent prosecution and clearance and opinion work, she counsels clients on the IP issues that arise in corporate advertising, marketing, and promotions.
Recorded webinar from November 21, 2013
Patent Law Primer Post-AIA: Do We Still Need to Keep Lab Notebooks?
Presented by Paul B. Henkelmann
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Patent Law Primer Post-AIA: Do We Still Need to Keep Lab Notebooks?" presented by Paul B. Henkelmann. The webinar will take place on Thursday, November 21, 2013, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), the most significant reform to U.S. patent law in decades, is now in full effect. While many fundamentals of patent law remain intact, the AIA instituted numerous changes to the law of patentability and patent enforceability that have important practical implications for businesses, inventors, patent applicants, patent owners, and patent practitioners.
One significant change to patent priority law is the determination of who has the right to receive a patent; under the AIA, the U.S. patent system changed from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system. As a result, a patent applicant can no longer “swear behind” a prior art reference by showing that the applicant invented the subject matter of an invention first. Does this mean that keeping lab notebooks or other proof of inventive activities is no longer necessary?
Protection provided by patents
Reasons for acquiring patent protection
Requirements for receiving a patent
An overview of the AIA
Practical implications of the AIA
Best practices for patent applicants going forward
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney Paul B. Henkelmann. Paul focuses his practice on patent litigation, patent procurement, and intellectual property counseling. He has substantial experience in both asserting and defending against patent infringement claims in the federal courts, while remaining active in procuring and managing international IP portfolios. Paul has worked with a broad range of mechanical and electrical technologies, ranging from complex automotive technology to sporting goods.
Recorded Webinar from October 24, 2013
Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): Lessons from the First Year
Presented by Timothy R. Baumann
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): Lessons from the First Year,” presented by Timothy R. Baumann. The webinar will take place on Thursday, October 24, 2013, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
One of the new procedures instituted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is the inter partes review (IPR). The IPR is a recently instituted post-issuance procedure before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that purposefully introduces litigation-type aspects into a patent office setting. Under the terms of the AIA, a determination of the validity of claims of a patent will be reached within one year after an inter partes review is initiated.
During this webinar, we will discuss these IPR topics and more:
Background information concerning IPRs
Estoppel consequences of IPRs
Limited discovery aspects of IPRs
Parallel litigation considerations such as stays
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Timothy R. Baumann. Tim has extensive experience assisting clients in the acquisition, protection, and management of all forms of intellectual property, particularly through complex patent prosecution and through the preparation of infringement and validity opinions, reexamination proceedings, and patent licensing agreements. Tim’s substantial litigation experience includes motion practice, taking and defending depositions, discovery practice, and trial work. At present, Tim is engaged in an active IPR (one of the very first filed).
Recorded webinar from September 26, 2013
On-Sale Bars Under the America Invents Act: Avoiding Pitfalls
Presented by Joseph F. Marinelli and David A. Gosse
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “On-Sale Bars Under the America Invents Act: Avoiding Pitfalls.” The webinar will take place on Thursday, Sept. 26, 2013, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
For inventors, patent owners, and accused infringers, some of the most critical changes introduced by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) were made to the heart of the patent statute, 35 U.S.C. §102, covering novelty and priority. Depending on how courts interpret the AIA’s new §102, there may be changes to a fundamental novelty doctrine: the on-sale bar. Under pre-AIA law, §102(b) barred patentability for an invention that was sold or offered for sale more than one year before the inventor applied for a patent, even if the sale or offer was kept secret from the public. In one interpretation of the AIA’s §102, only public sales or offers for sale would trigger an on-sale bar. The debate is ongoing, but the practical outcome will be significant to inventors and litigants alike.
During this webinar, we will discuss these topics and more:
The on-sale bar under pre-AIA law
The language of the AIA’s §102 and potential interpretations related to the on-sale bar
Whether the legislative history of the AIA sheds light on the issue
How the USPTO has interpreted the on-sale bar under the AIA
Best practices to cope with an unclear future
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Joseph F. Marinelli and David A. Gosse. Joe has a diverse intellectual property law practice covering all aspects of IP creation, management, enforcement, and licensing, with a particular emphasis on complex litigation. Dave’s practice includes invention and patentability analysis, patent drafting and prosecution, with a special focus on IP litigation.
Recorded webinar from July 31, 2013
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Considerations After CLS Bank and Ultramercial
Presented by David M. Kogan
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Considerations After CLS Bank and Ultramercial,” presented by David M. Kogan. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a much-anticipated en banc decision for CLS Bank v. Alice Corp, addressing the requirements for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The en banc opinion held that the method and computer-readable medium claims were not directed to eligible subject matter under §101. The opinion appeared to indicate agreement that what is needed is “a consistent, cohesive, and accessible approach to the §101 analysis,” but the 10-member en banc panel clearly disagreed on the correct approach, issuing seven different opinions and “reflections.” Even more recently, in Ultramercial v. Hulu, a three-member panel of the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims were patent-eligible subject matter under §101, but appeared to disagree on the rationale for this conclusion.
During this webinar, we will review and discuss the following topics and more:
Statutory basis for patentable subject matter and notable Supreme Court decisions
An overview of In re Bilski and its impact on the definition of patentable subject matter
CLS Bank: Summary and implications on the test of patent-eligible subject matter
Ultramercial: Does the first post-CLS Bank Federal Circuit case offer help?
Our speaker is Fitch Even attorney David M. Kogan. A registered patent attorney, David has substantial experience in both patent prosecution and litigation, handling matters relating to mechanical, chemical, pharmaceutical, and software technologies. David also counsels clients on worldwide IP portfolio management, strategic development, and licensing.
Recorded Webinar from June 27, 2013
Understanding the Limits of Your Patent: An Overview of Claim Construction for Prosecution and Litigation
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Understanding the Limits of Your Patent: An Overview of Claim Construction for Prosecution and Litigation,” presented by Mark A. Borsos. The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 27, 2013, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Claim construction often takes center stage in patent litigation. The interpretation of specific claim terms affects many of the key issues determined afterward, including infringement and validity, and in some cases is dispositive. The interpretation of claim terms can also help determine the outcome of issues such as inequitable conduct and inventorship. Consequently, it is important to consider different ways in which claim terms can be construed early on in litigation, and even during drafting and prosecution of the patent application.
We will review and discuss the following topics and more:
Types of evidence considered during the claim construction process
Claim construction concerns during patent drafting
Thinking ahead to litigation during patent prosecution
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office consideration of interpretation-based arguments
Common claim construction pitfalls
Recent questions regarding deference to the district court’s claim interpretation
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Mark A. Borsos. Mark has comprehensive litigation experience in discovery, summary judgment briefing, pretrial preparation, settlement negotiations, and trial. Mark’s practice also includes patent preparation and prosecution, with a unique focus on U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reissue and reexamination patent proceedings. He is skilled at taking patents through reissue and reexamination to advance licensing and litigation objectives.
Recorded Webinar from April 25, 2013
Disruptive Technologies and Patents: A Case Study of Graphene
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP and IPVision for a complimentary webinar, “Disruptive Technologies and Patents: A Case Study of Graphene,” presented by Steven G. Parmelee and Alex Butler. The webinar will take place on Thursday, April 25, 2013, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
A one-atom-thick sheet of carbon atoms arranged in a regular hexagonal pattern, graphene has earned headlines (e.g., “Graphene: Wonder Material of the 21st Century”) as frequent and breathless as normally staid scientific reporters ever permit. The 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics, enormous government and private sector investments, and countless articles, research papers, and grants have sparked an avalanche of patent filings. Published U.S. filings, for example, increased tenfold over a short five-year window.
Patenting behaviors that anticipated room-temperature superconductors
A deep dive into the statistics of graphene patenting to date
Patenting options available to those currently working in the graphene field
What those not (yet) working in the graphene field need to know
Our speakers are Fitch Even partner Steven G. Parmelee and Alex Butler, Executive Vice President of IPVision. Steve is a patent attorney with over 30 years of experience and is a published author on white-space inventing. Alex has spent over 15 years advising organizations in creating unique patent strategies across numerous technology areas.
Recorded Webinar from March 21, 2013
How to Get the Most Out of Design Patents
Presented by Edward E. Clair
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, "How to Get the Most Out of Design Patents," presented by Edward E. Clair. The webinar will take place on Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
With the impending dramatic U.S. Patent and Trademark Office fee increases, many consumer product suppliers may opt for pursuing relatively less-expensive design patent protection over utility patents. In view of this, it is more important than ever for suppliers to know how to get the most out of their design patents. To that end, this webinar will cover the following topics and more:
Creative and innovative strategies for maximizing the strength of a design patent portfolio
Recent rulings related to design patent law in the U.S. and the strategic import of same
The impact of the upcoming International Design Application on design patent programs
Cost and other considerations regarding national vs. community applications
The relationship of design patents to nontraditional trademarks (e.g., product configuration marks) and the costs, benefits, and risks of each
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Edward E. Clair. Ed advises clients on all aspects of domestic and foreign patents, trademarks, copyrights, advertising, trade secrets, and unfair competition, including contracts and other transactional work, prosecution, litigation, and opinion work.
Recorded Webinar from February 27, 2013
America Invents Act First-to-File Changes: What Happens Now?
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "America Invents Act First-to-File Changes: What Happens Now?" presented by Jeffrey A. Chelstrom. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, February 27, 2013, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
New first-to-file rules under the America Invents Act (AIA) take effect on March 16. As this date approaches, it will behoove applicants to review pending invention disclosures and to determine the risks and benefits of filing under the old law versus the new law. During this program, we will explore the changes soon to come and their impact on prosecution strategy going forward. Patent prosecutors and litigators need to be aware of potential pitfalls when drafting, prosecuting, and analyzing applications in the future.
A summary of prior art rules and the limited grace period under the new first-to-file rules
The unintended effects that new claims or amendments may have on existing applications
Continuation and continuation-in-part applications under the new law
Strategic filing considerations as March 16 approaches
Questions raised by the AIA that we may need to wait for the courts to answer
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Jeffrey A. Chelstrom. Jeff has extensive experience in writing and prosecuting patent applications for various technologies including chemical, materials, and mechanical arts. He leverages several years of experience as a chemical engineer along with his legal expertise to help keep his clients and their IP assets protected and secure.
Recorded Webinar from January 31, 2013
A Recap of Top 2012 TTAB Decisions
Presented by Alisa C. Simmons
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "A Recap of Top 2012 TTAB Decisions," presented by Alisa C. Simmons. The webinar will take place on Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
In 2012, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued several precedential decisions concerning topics such as TTAB discovery and trial procedure, standing to bring a claim before the TTAB, using web pages as specimens of use for goods, as well as dilution and likelihood of confusion. The Federal Circuit also affirmed a TTAB decision on dilution in the case Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning, LLC, which emphasizes the higher standard of proof required to show that a mark is famous for dilution purposes.
This webinar will provide a recap of these 2012 decisions, arming you with helpful insight into the TTAB’s recent rulings on issues relevant to protecting and registering your marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and asserting your marks in TTAB proceedings. We will consider the following issues and more:
The stringent showing necessary to prove fame for dilution purposes before the TTAB
Consequences of not updating initial disclosures before trial
Proving lack of bona fide intent to use a mark
Standing to bring actions before the TTAB
Using web pages as displays associated with goods to support use of a mark on goods
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney Alisa C. Simmons. Alisa focuses her practice on U.S. and foreign trademark prosecution, trademark litigation, and brand selection. She also provides counsel on copyright registration and enforcement, advertising review, and sweepstakes and promotions. In addition, Alisa handles matters involving unfair competition and domain name counseling and dispute resolution.
Recorded Webinar from November 28, 2012
In re MSTG, Inc.: The Discoverability of Patent Infringement Settlement Negotiations
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "In re MSTG, Inc.: The Discoverability of Patent Infringement Settlement Negotiations," presented by Jared E. Hedman. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, November 28, 2012, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
On April 9, 2012, the Federal Circuit considered a patent holder's attempt to fashion a new privilege to protect patent litigation settlement negotiations from discovery. The Federal Circuit refused to create the "settlement negotiation privilege," and also refused to disturb the district court's order to compel production relating to past litigation settlement negotiations. However, although patent litigation settlement negotiations are not protected from discovery per se, the In re MSTG case and other related cases demonstrate that the discoverability of settlement negotiations is not a cut-and-dried issue.
This webinar will discuss the In re MSTG decision and related topics, including these:
The relevance of patent settlement negotiations to later assertions of infringement
How previous settlement negotiations should be treated in later assertions of infringement
Approaching patent infringement settlement negotiations with an eye toward discoverability
Recorded Webinar from October 23, 2012
Continuation-in-Part Patent Application Practice—When Good Parents Go Bad
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Continuation-in-Part Patent Application Practice—When Good Parents Go Bad,” presented by Steven G. Parmelee. The webinar will take place on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Patent practitioners and their clients often view and apply continuation practice in the U.S., including the filing of continuations-in-part, in generous ways. Continuation-in-part (CIP) applications, however, can give rise to significant procedural concerns that many practitioners regularly neglect to acknowledge. The results can range from unnecessarily shortened patent lifetimes to wasted time, effort, and treasure in the form of dead-on-arrival CIP applications.
An overview of continuation practice and the corresponding basic requirements
The priority dates that apply to a CIP
When a parent application can become prior art against its own CIP offspring
The many possible faces of a “parent” (including PCT publications, foreign publications, USPTO publications, etc.)
The “continuous disclosure” requirement
CIP impact on patent term
Strategic considerations and practices (including selective use of provisional applications and requests to not publish pending applications in the U.S.)
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Steven G. Parmelee. For over 35 years, Steve has assisted clients with global patent portfolio management, freedom-to-operate issues, complex litigation, and transactions. Having prepared well over 1,000 U.S. patent applications, he has extensive experience in complex patent preparation and prosecution in the U.S. and abroad. Steve is also a published author and a frequent speaker on intellectual property topics.
Recorded Webinar from September 13, 2012
AIA Provisions Effective September 16, 2012: Inventor’s Oath or Declaration, Supplemental Examination, and More
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “AIA Provisions Effective September 16, 2012: Inventor’s Oath or Declaration, Supplemental Examination, and More,” presented by Nada J. Ardeleanu. The webinar will take place on Thursday, September 13, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Further provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) go into effect on September 16, 2012. Over the past several weeks, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued rules governing some of the new AIA procedures. In this webinar, we will pick up where our August 23 webinar left off and discuss more of the final rules and implementation of AIA provisions including these, among others:
New requirements and filing considerations for the inventor’s oath or declaration
How assignments can be used as an oath or declaration
How and when a patent owner may request a supplemental examination
How the immunity to inequitable conduct is applied upon such a request
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney Nada J. Ardeleanu, who focuses her law practice primarily on foreign and domestic patent preparation and prosecution, IP litigation, opinion and clearance work, due diligence, and international IP protection. Nada counsels clients ranging from large corporations to small businesses and start-ups working in industries that include food processing and packaging, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, chemical processing, and mechanical engineering.
Recorded Webinar from August 23, 2012
Third-Party Pre-Grant Prior Art Submissions Under the America Invents Act
Presented by Amanda Lowerre O'Donnell
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Third-Party Pre-Grant Prior Art Submissions Under the America Invents Act,” presented by Amanda L. Lowerre. The webinar will take place on Thursday, August 23, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Further provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) go into effect on September 16, 2012. In the past several weeks, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued rules governing some of the new AIA procedures. In this webinar, we will discuss some of the final rules and implementation of these provisions of AIA, including
the expanded opportunity for a third party to file prior art submissions into a pending application, and whether such submissions might be a desirable option for you or your client;
the expanded rules permitting citation of prior art in a patent file under section 301; and
how you or your competitors might use the new AIA provisions in pending applications and issued patents.
Last week, the USPTO issued additional rules governing post-grant review, the inventor’s oath or declaration, supplemental examination, inter partes review, and covered business method review provisions. These new rules will also go into effect on September 16. During our webinar, we will examine some of these additional AIA provisions as well.
Our speaker will be Fitch Even attorney Amanda L. Lowerre, who focuses her IP law practice primarily on patent prosecution, licensing, and business methods, with an emphasis on mechanical technologies. Amanda helps clients leverage their IP assets by developing global prosecution strategies that fit with each company’s needs and goals.
Recorded Webinar from June 21, 2012
In re Baxter: Challenging Patent Validity in the District Courts and by Reexamination in the USPTO—Two Bites at the Apple?
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “In re Baxter: Challenging Patent Validity in the District Courts and by Reexamination in the USPTO—Two Bites at the Apple?” presented by Joseph F. Marinelli. The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 21, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
As discussed during Fitch Even’s February webinar, reexamination proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are increasingly used as an alternative or adjunct to litigating validity in the federal courts. On May 17, 2012, in In re Baxter International, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s rejection during reexamination of patent claims as “obvious” under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Significantly, this decision came after the Federal Circuit had already affirmed a California U.S. District Court’s finding that the same patent claims were not invalid. The Federal Circuit squared the seemingly inconsistent conclusions on several bases, the most significant of which is that a lower burden of proof applies in USPTO reexaminations than in the district courts.
This webinar will discuss the In re Baxter decision and related topics, including these:
The differing burdens of proof in the USPTO and the district courts
How these different burdens of proof can result in varying conclusions regarding patent validity
The concepts of res judicata and estoppel as applied to reexaminations of patents, including post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act of 2011
The practical implications of In re Baxter on litigation
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Joe Marinelli, who has a diverse intellectual property law practice covering all aspects of IP creation, management, enforcement, and licensing, with a particular emphasis on complex litigation.
Recorded Webinar from May 23, 2012
Inequitable Conduct After Therasense: Materiality and the Intent to Deceive in Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Inequitable Conduct After Therasense: Materiality and the Intent to Deceive in Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,” presented by Alison Aubry Richards. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On April 9, 2012, for the first time after the Therasense decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct in Aventis, signifying that inequitable conduct based on failure to cite prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is still a viable patent infringement defense.
Inequitable conduct has long required both intent to deceive and materiality. Prior to the May 2011 decision in Therasense, the Federal Circuit had generally applied a low standard for intent and a broad view of materiality. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense changed these standards for inequitable conduct, making it far more difficult to prove. First, the Federal Circuit required specific knowing and deliberate intent to deceive. Second, Therasense raised the materiality standard, requiring “but-for” materiality. In Aventis, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct for the first time since Therasense.
This webinar will address these topics and more:
How to defend against an inequitable conduct defense;
How to maximize the chances of a successful inequitable conduct defense; and
How to avoid inequitable conduct as a prosecuting attorney, before and during litigation.
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Alison Aubry Richards. Alison is a trial attorney in the firm’s litigation group and focuses her practice on patent and copyright litigation. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 2003.
Recorded Webinar from April 25, 2012
Trademark Protection Strategies in Social Media
Presented by Joseph T. Nabor
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Trademark Protection Strategies in Social Media,” presented by Joseph T. Nabor. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, April 25, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
Eight years ago, Facebook did not yet exist. Today, there are an estimated 400 million users who share more than 5 billion pieces of content including photos, notes, and links every week. There are upwards of 1.5 million businesses with active pages on Facebook, and more than 20 million people become fans of various pages each day. And that’s just Facebook; there are also LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest, and other forms of social media to consider.
All this activity can be a brand manager’s dream come true—or a trademark holder’s nightmare. To help sort out some of the most important issues, this webinar will explore the following topics:
Exposure of trademarks on social media sites
Monitoring and enforcement against trademark infringement on social media sites
Using social media in litigation support
Ethics issues in social media
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Joseph T. Nabor. Joe oversees Fitch Even's Trademark and Copyright practice group and has extensive experience in both domestic and international trademark prosecution, as well as litigation. He also regularly counsels clients on brand development strategies, including securing trademark rights throughout the world, and assists with the enforcement and protection of rights developed under the copyright laws of all international jurisdictions.
Recorded Webinar from March 21, 2012
Provisional Patent Applications: Making Substance in a Land Without Form
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Provisional Patent Applications: Making Substance in a Land Without Form,” presented by Steven G. Parmelee. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, March 21, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
The first-to-invent impact of the America Invents Act requires a serious reevaluation of the use and content of provisional patent applications. Because many clients may wish to use this filing approach more often, this webinar sets out to instruct and empower various parties, from inventor to patent attorney, to prepare and file provisional patent applications that are long on quality and short on costly overtures to form.
U.S. provisional patent applications have few requirements of form. One could, for example, file a copy of the proverbial dinner napkin upon which the inventor scribbled the details of an idea. It is therefore possible to submit provisional patent applications for very little cost. Is it possible, however, to achieve substantive parity with traditional patent application drafting techniques while avoiding costly matters of form when preparing a provisional application? Our webinar will cover such factors, addressing these topics and more:
The job of a provisional patent application
Value-added content
How many inventions to include
Recorded Webinar from February 22, 2012
Patent Reexaminations in Parallel with Litigation
Presented by Joseph E. Shipley
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Patent Reexaminations in Parallel with Litigation,” presented by Joseph E. Shipley. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, February 22, 2012, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
Reexamination proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are increasingly used as an alternative or adjunct to litigating validity in the federal courts. As reexamination procedures grow in popularity, it is becoming more and more important for patent attorneys to understand the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to seek reexamination. Our February webinar will cover these factors in depth, addressing the following topics and more:
Objectives: What can be achieved in reexamination and what cannot
Current statistics on outcomes
Reexamination options
Alternatives to reexamination
We will also briefly discuss two new USPTO procedures that will become available on September 16, 2012--Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review--and will compare and contrast these with the current procedures. The webinar will conclude with an interactive question and answer session.
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Joseph E. Shipley. For over 25 years, Joe has assisted clients with global patent portfolio management, freedom-to-operate issues, complex litigation, and transactions. He has extensive experience in both U.S. and international work involving patent prosecution and post-issuance challenges in reexaminations and other proceedings. Joe’s practice focuses on first understanding clients’ business issues, then developing and executing creative IP strategies to address the clients’ needs in a highly efficient manner.
Recorded Webinar from January 19, 2012
The USPTO’s Recent Changes to Appeal Practice: What, When, How, and Why
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “The USPTO’s Recent Changes to Appeal Practice: What, When, How, and Why,” presented by Kenneth W. Hairston. The webinar will take place on Thursday, January 19, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT/ 10:00 am MDT/ 11:00 am CDT/ 12:00 noon EDT.
During this program, attendees will learn about the immediate effects the new USPTO rules will have on practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”). For one example, these new rules will apply to all appeals in which a notice of appeal is filed on or after January 23, 2012.
Topics to be reviewed and discussed during this presentation will include these:
Reasoning behind some of the mandatory briefing requirements of the old Board rules
Reasoning behind the changes made to the new Board rules
Significant amendments to the new Board rules
Significant deletions made to the old Board rules
How the new Board rules will impact future appeals before the Board
Observations about the new rules, and recommendations concerning use of the new rules
The webinar will conclude with an interactive question and answer session.
Our speaker is Fitch Even counsel Kenneth W. Hairston. Mr. Hairston has provided intellectual property law counsel for over 37 years, including 23 years serving as an Administrative Patent Judge at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences at the USPTO. Drawing upon the insight and extensive experience gained from his judicial work, Mr. Hairston currently counsels clients in complex patent prosecution matters and patent office appeals, as well as administrative post-patent grant challenges, including ex parte reexaminations.
Recorded Webinar from December 14, 2011
Collection, Review, and Production of Your Client’s Electronic Information
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Collection, Review, and Production of Your Client’s Electronic Information," presented by Shane Delsman. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
The e-discovery stage of collecting, reviewing, and producing your client’s electronically stored information (ESI) can be shaped by many factors, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Although e-discovery can and often does involve massive amounts of information, the proper use of e-discovery tools can minimize the time and expense associated with collecting, reviewing, and producing such information.
This webinar will review and discuss the following topics and more:
Collecting ESI for further use in the e-discovery process
Processing collected ESI, including reducing the volume and converting formats to facilitate review
Reviewing ESI for relevance and privilege
Producing ESI for others in appropriate forms and storage media
How the Federal Rules affect the above procedures
Some example methodologies for collecting, processing, and producing ESI
The program will conclude with an interactive Q&A session.
Our speaker is Fitch Even attorney Shane Delsman. Shane has a wide-ranging intellectual property law practice that includes IP litigation, opinion counseling, and patent prosecution, with significant experience in e-discovery matters. He has previously presented and moderated presentations on e-discovery for Fitch Even and the IP Committee of the Chicago Bar Association. E-discovery generally takes place after a litigation hold has been put in place to preserve electronic evidence.
Recorded Webinar from November 17, 2011
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: A Further Look into "First-to-File"
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: A Further Look into First-to-File," presented by Jeffrey A. Chelstrom. The webinar will take place on Thursday, November 17, 2011, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
During this program, we will explore the future conversion of the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. In this major revision of the U.S. patent laws, Congress has replaced rather than revised Section 102, leaving only a few similarities to the old Section 102. Although this particular change does not take effect until March 16, 2013, it will have a dramatic effect on developing a patent strategy that inventors, companies, IP practitioners, and their clients all need to understand in order to effectively manage and develop a patent portfolio under the new laws.
The “effective filing date” of a patent application
Changes to Section 102 on Novelty and to Section 103 on Obviousness
New definitions of prior art
The narrowed grace period
Other exceptions to the first-to-file rules
Exemplary scenarios applying the new Section 102
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Jeffrey A. Chelstrom. Jeff has extensive experience in writing and prosecuting patent applications for various technologies including chemical, materials, and mechanical arts. He leverages several years of experience as a chemical engineer along with his legal expertise to help keep his clients and their IP assets protected and secure.
Recorded Webinar from October 4, 2011
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: A First Look
Presented by Nicholas T. Peters
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: A First Look," presented by Nicholas T. Peters. The webinar will take place on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
During this program, attendees will learn about the immediate effects that the newly signed America Invents Act has on current U.S. patent laws—important changes that IP practitioners and their clients need to know about now. The webinar will focus primarily on the portions of the Act that are already in effect or will be in effect in the near term.
The issues discussed will include these and more:
Restrictions in the joinder of multiple defendants in patent litigation
Enactment of the prior commercial use defense to a patent infringement claim
Restrictions in the ability to make false marking claims
Providing the ability to virtually mark
Establishment of a “micro entity” for fee payment purposes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Change in the standard to initiate an inter partes reexamination
Establishment of the prioritized examination procedure at the USPTO
We will also briefly preview changes that will take effect in 2012 and 2013, including new patent-challenging procedures at the USPTO after patent issuance and making the transition from a "first to invent" system to a "first inventor to file" system.
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Nicholas T. Peters. Mr. Peters has a wide-ranging intellectual property litigation practice, with a specialty in USPTO matters. He uses his litigation and USPTO experience combined with his technical background in physics and engineering to assist his clients in securing and protecting their IP assets.
Recorded Webinar from September 21, 2011
Matching Patent Prosecution to Your Business Goals
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Matching Patent Prosecution to Your Business Goals," presented by Nicholas T. Peters. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
During this webinar, attendees will learn valuable lessons on how to navigate the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and how the process of obtaining a patent can be strategically tailored to an applicant's specific business objectives.
The presentation will cover these topics and more:
How patent application drafting need not be "one size fits all" with respect to breadth, cost, and strategy
How USPTO procedures and rules affect patent prosecution speed and results
How different approaches to patent filing and prosecution strategies can be matched to a given business goal
A look ahead at proposed USPTO programs that may further an applicant’s ability to advance a particular business goal
In addition, attendees will hear about approaches to foreign patent filing, in connection with the above topics. The webinar will conclude with an interactive Q&A session.
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Nicholas T. Peters. Mr. Peters has a wide-ranging intellectual property litigation practice, with a specialty in USPTO matters. He uses his litigation and USPTO experience combined with his technical background in physics, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering to assist his clients in securing and protecting their intellectual property assets.
Recorded Webinar from August 31, 2011
Litigation Holds: The First Step in Preventing Spoliation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Litigation Holds: The First Step in Preventing Spoliation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)," presented by Christine A. Pompa and Shane Delsman. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, August 31, 2011, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
The webinar will focus on spoliation—one of the biggest pitfalls faced by litigants and their attorneys—and how the use of carefully drafted litigation hold letters can help to reduce its likelihood.
Specific topics covered during this presentation will include
What is meant by the term "spoliation," and what its consequences are
What is meant by the term "ESI," and where it can be found
What a litigation hold is, when a hold is necessary, to whom it should be distributed, and what it should say
Methods to preserve ESI, and other ways to prevent spoliation
In addition, the presenters will share a number of practice tips, and will conclude with a Q&A session with attendees.
Our speakers are Fitch Even attorneys Christine A. Pompa and Shane Delsman. Ms. Pompa is an experienced intellectual property litigator who has been recognized in Illinois Super Lawyers - Rising Stars for 2010 and 2011. Mr. Delsman has a wide-ranging intellectual property law practice that includes IP litigation, opinion counseling, and patent prosecution, with significant experience in e-discovery matters.
Recorded Webinar from July 19, 2011
Intellectual Property Concerns and Best Practices for Clients Having Products Manufactured in Asia
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Intellectual Property Concerns and Best Practices for Clients Having Products Manufactured in Asia," presented by Edward E. Clair. The webinar will take place on Tuesday, July 19, 2011, at 9:00 am PDT/10:00 am MDT/11:00 am CDT/12:00 pm EDT.
The webinar will explore intellectual property concerns that domestic clients often face when having products designed, developed, and/or manufactured in Asia and will provide you with practice tips for protecting intellectual property and for addressing concerns that can arise when manufacturing products in Asia.
The following topics (and more) will be discussed:
U.S. laws and regulations regarding the exportation of ideas, products, and processes to foreign countries (even when these items are intended for importation back into the U.S.)
How best to protect intellectual property before exporting anything to Asia
How best to address concerns that often arise after exporting items to Asia, but before the client has pursued IP protection for same
A number of possible scenarios involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, and U.S. Customs will be presented as examples. The seminar will conclude with a Q&A session with attendees.
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Edward E. Clair, who has extensive experience in protecting clients' intellectual property both domestically and abroad, in particular for entities who manufacture products in Asia and require assistance with both procurement and enforcement of such intellectual property globally.
Webinar from June 29, 2011
Protection by Design: A Comparison of U.S. and European Design Protection
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Protection by Design: A Comparison of U.S. and European Design Protection," presented by Jon A. Birmingham. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, June 29, 2011, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 pm EDT.
This webinar will delve deeply into concepts relating to protecting designs in the U.S. and Europe from a U.S. perspective and will provide you with the information you need to understand many important differences between obtaining and enforcing U.S. design patents and European Registered Community Designs.
Determining the scope of a U.S. design patent application
Filing U.S. design patent applications claiming priority to European Registered Community Designs
Enforcement of U.S. design patents post-Egyptian Goddess
Comparison of U.S. design patent application processes with European Registered
Community Designs processes
Comparison of U.S. design patent enforcement with European Registered Community Designs enforcement, including differences in available relief
In addition, some simple examples and practice tips will be incorporated into the seminar. The webinar will conclude with a Q&A session with attendees.
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Jon A. Birmingham. Jon has extensive experience in writing and prosecuting patent applications and enforcing patents for various technologies, including design patents.
Recorded Webinar from June 9, 2011
Are You Liable for Your Customer’s Patent Infringement?
Presented by Allen E. Hoover
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Are You Liable for Your Customer's Patent Infringement?" presented by Allen E. Hoover. The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 9, 2011, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 pm EDT.
Are you liable for your customer’s infringement? If your customers are accused of patent infringement, you may find yourself in court, facing an assertion of liability as an indirect infringer. If you are an attorney advising a client on infringement issues, be aware that a number of recent developments have affected the law in this area.
This webinar will provide an introduction to the law of indirect infringement in the United States, and will provide practical guidance to managing the risks of indirect infringement. Topics discussed will include
Steps to take when confronted with an issue of indirect infringement
The impact of recent court decisions
The seminar will conclude with a Q&A session with the presenter.
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Allen Hoover. Since 1993, Mr. Hoover's practice has focused on patent litigation and other complex patent matters. He has first- and second-chair trial experience in a substantial number of patent lawsuits. In addition, Mr. Hoover regularly manages patent portfolios for clients in a broad spectrum of technologies, and frequently counsels clients on patent infringement risks and other IP-related issues.
Recorded Webinar from March 30, 2011
On March 30, 2011, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery hosted a webinar on "Social Media and Litigation." Topics covered included these:
How social media can be useful in discovering information about an opposing party
Tips on minimizing potential risk from your own social media use
The current state of the law with respect to evidentiary and ethical issues relating to social media
Although this webinar is no longer available for viewing, if you have questions regarding social media as it relates to litigation, please contact Fitch Even partner Christine A. Pompa.
Recorded Webinar from March 1, 2011
Inventorship: How to See Through This "Muddiest Concept . . . of the Patent Law"
On March 1, 2011, Fitch Even hosted "Inventorship: How to See Through This 'Muddiest Concept . . . of the Patent Law,'" presented by Steven G. Parmelee. The webinar explored the concept of “inventorship” and provided information needed to understand how to make satisfactory determinations of this very fundamental inquiry. The following topics (and more) were discussed:
Inventorship tests
Proving inventorship
Assessing inventorship at the time of filing
Assessing inventorship post-filing
Correcting inventorship
This webinar is no longer available for viewing, but if you have questions regarding the topic of inventorship, we invite you to contact Fitch Even partner Steven G. Parmelee.