now browsing by tag
Matthew Molloy and John Luken of Dinsmore & Shohl will lead July’s discussion on Supreme Court and Federal Court cases decided and pending in 2017 and 2018 that will significantly impact IP practice for litigators and prosecutors alike. Malloy and Luken will highlight the impact of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC; SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu; Aqua Products v. Matal; and Wifi v. Broadcom, among others.
REGISTER HERE by July 5th at noon.
*This month’s meeting will be held at the Hampton Inn & Suites downtown, which is on Vine Street around the corner from The Cincinnatian.
About the Speakers:
Mr. Molloy is admitted to practice before the USPTO and has extensive experience in the preparation and prosecution of patents in the U.S. and abroad. He brings expertise in managing international patent portfolios, rendering patent opinions, and negotiating and drafting IP license agreements.
Mr. Luken focuses his practice on patent infringement litigation and appeals, as well as complex commercial and other intellectual property litigation. He has handled patent infringement cases involving a variety of services and products, from software to beverage cans and retail security products.
Patent Office Litigation– How to Wield A New Low-Cost Alternative to District Court Patent Litigation
This interactive talk covers the new post-grant proceedings made available for the first time at the USPTO under the America Invents Act. Michael Messinger, Partner at Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox will lead us as we look at the various features of inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method review (CBM). This talk covers the pros and cons of using these different strategies and how company decision-makers can take advantage of them. We discuss the parties and technologies involved in IPR and CBM proceedings already, and what we have learned one year in from actual case examples. Issues faced by patent defendants and patent owners are covered. These include available patentability grounds, scope of discovery, time limits, estoppels, and stays. We also describe the newly created Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrating these trials.
For additional information and to register, please click here
Greg Ahrens, Partner at Wood Herron & Evans LLP, will speak on the consequences of IP prosecution during litigation. The goal in preparing and prosecuting patent, trademark, and copyright applications is to gain issuance or registration of the application. However, techniques used or actions taken during preparation and prosecution of patent, trademark, and copyright applications may have unintended consequences that are revealed when the issued (or registered) intellectual property is litigated. For example, courts may find the issued property to be invalid or unenforceable or may limit the scope of protection based on the prosecution record. In particular, certain statements made (or even omissions) in the application and/or during prosecution, failure to comply with formal requirements, or fraudulent or inequitable dealings with the issuing office (e.g., the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office) can be detrimental to the intellectual property holder’s litigation position. For example, with respect to patent law, the presentation will likely address claim construction, doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, and/or inequitable conduct. In the trademark and copyright contexts, the presentation will address failure to satisfy certain formal requirements, as well as limitations on the scope of protection that may arise during prosecution.
For registration information, click here