USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2013 2018-09-11¢  Satisfy Your CLE Requirements! USPTO...

download USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2013 2018-09-11¢  Satisfy Your CLE Requirements! USPTO Post-Grant Patent

of 8

  • date post

    27-Jun-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2013 2018-09-11¢  Satisfy Your CLE Requirements! USPTO...

  • Satisfy Your CLE Requirements!

    USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2013

    Chicago, March 4, 2013 New York City, March 27, 2013 Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Mechanicsburg and New Brunswick Groupcast Locations, March 27, 2013

    Live Webcast, March 27, 2013 — www.pli.edu San Francisco, April 15, 2013 Austin, April 29, 2013

    Register Online at www.pli.edu or Call (800) 260-4PLI

    ®

    • Master the new USPTO post-grant patent trial procedures mandated by the America Invents Act and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board

    • Learn the strategic benefits and options presented by the new AIA options, Inter Partes Review, Covered Business Method Patent Challenges, and Post-Grant Review, and where patent reexamination fits into the new landscape

    • Understand the role of post-grant USPTO proceedings as a component of litigation strategy

    • Take away the insights of preeminent patent lawyers and judges

    Austin Location Presented with The University of Texas School of Law

  • Why You Should Attend Post-grant patent proceedings were pursued in record numbers at the USPTO in 2012. The substantial costs and uncertainty of patent litigation require the development of alternative case management strategies, which at least require consideration of challenging patents at the USPTO. To this end, patent reexamination remains a viable alternative to costly litigation or a parallel path to enhance litigation positions. Yet due to the public outcry for even more robust USPTO post-issuance proceedings, the America Invents Act (AIA) introduced entirely new options such as Post-Grant Review, Inter Partes Review (which replaced inter partes patent reexamination), Derivation Proceedings, and a special post-grant review for Covered Business Method patents. Going forward into 2013, it is anticipated that the USPTO will become an even more prominent battleground for patent disputes.

    Potential benefits of post-grant patent challenges to defendants include: • Provide an opportunity to stay a concurrent litigation • Provide a low-cost alternative to district court and/or ITC litigation • Facilitate settlement on terms favorable to the defendant • Create an intervening rights defense • Create additional file history that provides new non-infringement and/or estoppel theories • Demonstrate objective evidence of a lack of willfulness • Lessen the probability of injunctive relief • Demonstrate the “but for” materiality of references applied in an inequitable

    conduct defense • Undermine or prevent damage verdicts with a USPTO invalidity ruling • Provide an additional basis on which to obtain a stay of judgment pending appeal

    The program is taught by a faculty of judges, preeminent lawyers, and industry leaders who have earned national reputations in patent litigation and in post-grant proceedings at the USPTO.

    What You Will Learn The program focuses on the role of post-grant USPTO proceedings as a component of a litigation strategy, including pretrial and post-trial options. Although the course will focus on strategic considerations, procedural traps for the unwary will also be identified. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the various proceedings are explained from the perspectives of both the Patentee and the Third Party. Perspectives of the judiciary are presented, including case studies of well-known disputes. Insight to the organization, operation and procedures of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Central Reexamination Unit, and Office of Patent Legal Administration will be discussed.

    Who Should Attend Patent owners and investors involved in patent litigation or considering the initiation of patent litigation; corporate counsel responsible for managing a patent portfolio and responding to third-party inquiries; patent litigators advising clients in disputes that involve or may lead to litigation; advisors, owners, and analysts involved in patent licensing, valuation, sale, or monetization; and patent professionals representing others before the USPTO in the areas of post-grant patent practice.

    USPTO Post-Grant Patent Trials 2013

    Chicago, March 4, 2013 New York City, March 27, 2013 Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Mechanicsburg and New Brunswick

    Groupcast Locations, March 27, 2013 Live Webcast, March 27, 2013 — www.pli.edu San Francisco, April 15, 2013 Austin, April 29, 2013

    Reserve your place today, call (800) 260-4PLI.

  • Program Schedule

    Morning Session: 9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

    9:00

    Program Overview CHI, NYC, SF, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB & WEB: Scott A. McKeown, Robert Greene Sterne AUS: W. Todd Baker, Robert Greene Sterne

    9:15

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Trial Proceedings, Reexamination Before the Central Reexamination Unit, and the Office of Patent Legal Administration • Derivation • Ex Parte Reexamination • Inter Partes Reexamination (Legacy) • Inter Partes Review • Post-Grant Review • Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents CHI, NYC, SF, AUS, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB & WEB: Hon. James Donald Smith (Invited), Hon. Michael P. Tierney (Invited), Irem Yucel (Invited)

    10:15

    Post-Grant Strategies and Tactics • The challenger perspective • The patent owner perspective • Portfolio considerations • Estoppel • When, what, and why to challenge patentability at the

    USPTO instead of validity in the District Court or the ITC CHI, NYC, SF, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB & WEB: Scott A. McKeown AUS: W. Todd Baker

    11:15 Networking Break

    11:30

    Discovery Practice Before the PTAB • Pretrial discovery options • Initial disclosures • Protective orders • Discovery standards • Expert declarant selection and cross-examination • Impeachment and use of inconsistent statements CHI & SF: Michael L. Kiklis, Michael B. Ray NYC, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB, AUS & WEB: Eldora L. Ellison, Michael L. Kiklis

    12:30 Lunch Break

    Afternoon Session: 1:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

    1:45

    Practice Before the PTAB Roundtable • Retrospective of first trial petitions • Motion practice • Scheduling • Rule refinements • Practice tips CHI: Eugene R. Quinn, Jr., Moderator; Christopher J. Renk, Robert Greene Sterne NYC, SF, AUS, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB & WEB: Eugene R. Quinn, Jr., Moderator; Lisa A. Dolak, Robert Greene Sterne

    2:45 Networking Break

    3:00

    Appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit • Appeal route • Standards of review • Briefing schedule • Effective briefs • Oral argument • Practice tips CHI: Meredith Martin Addy, Paul H. Berghoff NYC, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB & WEB: Donald R. Dunner, Katherine Kelly Lutton SF: Catherine Lacavera, Edward R. Reines AUS: Nancy J. Linck, David L. McCombs

    4:00

    The U.S. District Court and ITC Judicial Perspectives • Parallel universe for patentability/validity determinations

    between the USPTO and the district courts and the ITC • Different claim construction • Different burdens of proof • Estoppels • Stays • Timelines of parallel proceedings CHI: Katherine Pauley Barecchia, Vera M. Elson, Hon. James F. Holderman NYC, PHIL, PITT, MECH, NB & WEB: Katherine Pauley Barecchia, Leora Ben-Ami, Hon. Faith S. Hochberg SF: Scott P. McBride, Edward G. Poplawski, Hon. Ronald M. Whyte AUS: Douglas A. Cawley, Hon. Barbara M. G. Lynn, Scott P. McBride

    5:00 Adjourn

    Please plan to arrive with enough time to register before the conference begins. A networking breakfast will be available upon your arrival.

  • Chicago

    Co-Chairs: Scott A. McKeown Oblon, Spivak, McClelland,

    Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Alexandria, Virginia

    Robert Greene Sterne Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. Washington, D.C.

    New York City, Groupcast Locations & Live Webcast

    San Francisco

    Austin

    Meredith Martin Addy Steptoe & Johnson LLP Chicago

    Katherine Pauley Barecchia Blank Rome LLP Philadelphia

    Paul H. Berghoff McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert

    & Berghoff LLP Chicago

    Vera M. Elson Sidley Austin LLP Palo Alto

    Hon. James F. Holderman Chief Judge United States District Court,

    Northern District of Illinois Chicago

    Michael L. Kiklis Oblon, Spivak, McClelland,

    Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Alexandria, Virginia

    Eugene R. Quinn, Jr. President and Founder,

    IPWatchdog.com IP Watchdog, Inc. Leesburg, Virginia

    Michael B. Ray Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. Washington, D.C.

    Katherine Pauley Barecchia Blank Rome LLP Philadelphia

    Leora Ben-Ami Kirkland & Ellis LLP New York City

    Lisa A. Dolak Professor, Syracuse University

    College of Law Syracuse University Syracuse, New York

    Donald R. Dunner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,

    Garrett & Dunner, LLP Washington, D.C.

    Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D. Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. Washington, D.C.

    Hon. Faith S. Hochberg District Judge United States District Court,

    District of New Jersey Newark, New Jersey

    Michael L. Kiklis Oblon, Spivak, McClelland,

    Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Alexandria, Virginia

    Katherine Kelly Lutton Fish & Richardson P.C. Redwood City, California

    Lisa A. Dolak Professor, Syracuse University

    College of Law Syracuse University Syracuse, New York

    Michael L. Kiklis Oblon, Spivak, McClelland,

    Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Alexandria, Virginia

    Catherine Lacavera Director, Litigation Google Inc. Mountain View, California

    Scott P. McBride Mc