* Applicable Membership or Subscription discounts will be added in your shopping cart
Description: There’s no doubt about it. Convincing the PTAB to institute an inter partes review today is getting tougher. It’s no longer enough to just find killer prior art and draft a strong petition. With the rise of decisions like NHK Spring and Fintiv, now petitioners have to convince the PTAB that a the IPR would not be inefficient in view of parallel proceedings in the district court or the ITC. Overcoming NHK Spring and Fintiv, can be a challenge, but it’s not impossible. In this presentation, we will review the developing case law and discuss how some petitioners have been able to convince the PTAB to institute despite fast moving parallel district court proceedings.
Presenter Bios
Mike Tomasulo’s practice focuses on high-stakes intellectual property litigation and counseling for a wide array of entertainment and technology clients. Mike has appeared in more than 60 patent cases throughout the country, including the Federal Circuit, all California district courts, the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of Delaware. Mike has trial experience before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Since joining Winston in 2012, Mike has represented leading companies in the videogame industry (Epic Games, Take-Two Interactive Software, PUBG, 2K Sports, Rockstar Games, Electronic Arts, Nintendo, Nvidia), cloud computing (VMware, Cloudera), social media (Snap), the medical device industry (Medtronic, Smiths Medical), and the LED/semiconductor industry (Everlight Electronics, Inc., Emcore Corp.).
His clients have said he “is never fazed, no matter what comes up” and that “he’s great at organizing a team around him so he can focus on the most important decisions.” They have complimented his client service, stating he “really understands what client service is all about [and] saves his clients considerable money.” Mike's client service was highlighted for, "keep[ing[ in-house teams looped in and fully informed and involved in their cases." (IAM 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020)
His litigation matters have involved a wide range of technologies, including various aspects of video game technology, networking technologies, cloud computing, virtual networks, semiconductors, flash memory controllers, Internet search and database management technology, software patents, gamma ray inspection equipment, high-brightness LEDs, computer hardware emulation, mechanical equipment, balloon catheters, infusion pumps, medical devices, yoga pants, and biotechnology. His clients have praised his ability to understand their technology and find sensible solutions, noting that Mike “fully appreciates what our engineers do and provides legal solutions that enable us to compete effectively in our marketplace” and that he "[p]erformed well in . . . technically dense PTAB matters." (IAM 2014, 2019)
In addition to his patent litigation experience, Mike has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous trade secret, copyright, and trademark litigations, as well as in two breach of contract arbitrations, including an international dispute litigated simultaneously in Canada and in the United States before the International Center for Dispute Resolution.
Mike also has donated his time as a court-appointed attorney settlement officer for patent litigation matters in the Central District of California. This experience has proved invaluable in helping him achieve early, cost-effective settlements for his clients. To that end, his clients have said that he is “[g]reat at dealing with opposing parties and sets a civilized tone.” (IAM Patent 1000 2014)
Louis Campbell’s engineering and communication skills place his clients in their best position to win, which has been proven time and again in successful outcomes at the ITC. For example, through a detailed cross-examination at trial, Louis was able to go through several dozen lines of source code of a prior art product and extract an admission from a hostile technical witness that the product lacked key functionality, which contradicted the defendant’s expert witness. This key admission helped to defend his client’s patent from a validity challenge. Notably, extracting this admission would have been impossible without being able to read and understand the source code as well as explain it to non-engineers.
Louis has also litigated in all the other major patent litigation venues including the Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Delaware, and Federal Circuit. He has experience with all phases of litigation from pre-filing investigation through PTAB IPR proceedings, Markman hearings, trial, and appeal. He has experience with a wide variety of technologies including mobile applications, check processing, interactive program guides, smartphones, distributed computing, networking, wireless communication standards such as LTE, CDMA, WCDMA, 802.11, and 802.3, video games, graphics, S3TC and PVRTC texture compression, x86 and ARM processor instruction sets, CPU and GPU architecture, wafer fabrication, cryptography, industrial control systems, supply chain management, and automobile wiper blades.
Kevin Boyle is a litigation associate in the Chicago office. Prior to joining the firm, Kevin was a law clerk and has experience conducting case history research, drafting motions for patent litigation support, as well as drafting applications, responding to office actions, and compiling claim charts for patent prosecution.
Kevin previously worked as a research associate at Alcami, where he designed and optimized chemical processes for the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients, supervised pilot plant operations to ensure success of novel projects, operated analytical instruments and analyzed data to measure the success of experiments and processes.
 | | Practice Areas: | | Intellectual Property Law | | | Online Media Type: | | Audio | | | Production Date: | | 12/08/2020 2:00 PM EST | | | Level: | | Intermediate | | | Category: | | Standard | | | Duration: | | 1 Hours, 0 Minutes | | | Online Format: | | Live | | | Course Type: | | Public |
Click here for information on subscription discounts and Group Viewing opportunities.
Purchase of this product provides online access for 180 days. If you are purchasing a live webcast, you will receive complimentary access to the on demand version for 180 days once it becomes available. Please note that the on demand and podcast versions may, or may not be accredited in your state.
If you intend to take a course for CLE credit, please make sure your state is listed in the "Accreditation" section to the upper right of the program description. Accreditation displayed is unique to the purchased program format (live conference, live webcast, on demand, podcast). Credit totals listed for live conferences are the maximum credits available. Credits issued will be based upon actual time in attendance. Credit totals for other formats are for complete programs. Partial credit is not available for any online or downloadable format.
West LegalEdcenter will not provide accreditation for states not listed.
CLE Scholarship information
Tuition Assistance for legal professionals taking our programs. Learn more about the program.
This product is intended for individual use by the named purchaser. Group viewings for online programs may be arranged for five or more attorneys within the same organization prior to viewing by emailing west.wlec-sales@thomson.com.
People who bought this program also bought:| There are no current recommendations |
| | |
|
| | • | Michael A. Tomasulo, Esq - Winston & Strawn LLP | | • | Louis L. Campbell, Esq. - Winston & Strawn LLP | | • | Kevin J. Boyle, Esq. - Winston & Strawn LLP |
| | |
|