Intellectual Property Owners Association

Serving the Global Intellectual Property Community

ReadMore

IP Chat Channel

   LongBannerIPChat15_TM

webinarbutton_360 clebutton Passbutton sponsorshipbutton contactbutton

Intellectual Property Owners Association’s weekly
one-hour webinar series on current topics in IP

register_small

Registration Fee: $135 per user
Save with an Unlimited Annual Pass
Government/Academic Rates are
available upon written request to
meetings@ipo.org

Hosted and produced by
journalist Pamela Sherrid
PamelaHeadshot082812


2018 Scheduled Webinars

An Update on the On-Sale Bar: Helsinn at the Supreme Court

Thursday, 19 July 2018 2:00PM-3:00PM ET 

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Helsinn v. Teva in late June, teeing up an important question about the on- sale bar under the AIA. In this particular case, which the Federal Circuit declined to rehear en banc, a patent was invalidated after the sale was partially made public: the details of the invention, an anti-nausea drug, were kept secret, but the existence of the sale was publicly disclosed.

Our panel of experts, including a top Supreme Court advocate, in-house counsel, and a patent litigator, will review the current status quo after two significant Federal Circuit decisions in recent years on the on-sale and public use bars, Merck & CIE v. Watson Labs and The Medicines Co. v. Hospira. These decisions raised in-house concerns about patent prosecution practices, confidentiality, and guidance to commercial teams. The panelists will also consider what questions may remain unanswered after Helsinn, such as (1) does a fully-secret sales offer count to bar a patent under section 102? and
(2) even if it serves as a bar to patentability under section 102, to what extent does a secret sale count as “prior art” for obviousness purposes? They will also consider the Justices’ options in this case.

Speakers:  

  • John Duffy, University of Virginia 
  • Jennifer Johnson, DuPont 
  • Christopher Loh, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto 

What’s Next for Design Patent Damages? DOJ Test on Trial

Thursday, 26 July 2018 2:00PM- 3:00PM ET

For all its eye-popping size, the $533 million award that Apple won against Samsung in a design patent infringement case was seen by few as legally significant.  Now that the case has settled, it is an interesting time for our expert panel — an attorney who specializes in design patents, a damages expert, and in-house counsel at an automaker — to assess the current state of damages law for design patents.

The Supreme Court in 2016 held that the relevant “article of manufacture” could be either all or part of the infringing product.  One possible standard for determining the relevant “article of manufacture” for Section 289 purposes was proposed by the United States Department of Justice in an amicus brief it submitted to the Supreme Court.  And that test is taking on a vigorous life of its own.

This summer, Seirus will file a brief in its appeal at the Federal Circuit after it was required by a jury last year to pay $3 million in design patent damages to Columbia.  Columbia v. Seirus was the first case after Samsung v. Apple to charge a jury to use the DOJ’s test.  The outcome of this case is thus eagerly anticipated.

Our panelists will discuss the Federal Circuit’s options in addressing the DOJ standard.  They will also discuss:

  • Other legal uncertainties left by the Supreme court, including who bears the burden of proof in the DOJ test, and whether the identity of the article of manufacture is a matter of fact to be decided by the jury
  • Strategies for patent prosecution and litigation in light of uncertainty
  • Certain areas, such as graphical user interfaces, where both innovators and implementers must take special care

Speakers:  

  • Rick Bero, The Bero Group 
  • James Dottavio, Ford Global Technologies LLC
  • Elizabeth Ferrill, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Strategies and Pitfalls of CIP and Provisional Practice

Thursday, 9 August 2018 2:00PM- 3:00PM ET

Speakers:  

  • Courtenay Brinckerhoff, Foley & Lardner LLP 
  • Charles Chesney, Qualcomm Incorporated 
  • Roland McAndrews, Bookoff McAndrews PLLC