* Applicable Membership or Subscription discounts will be added in your shopping cart
Description: A fireside chat with Drew Hirshfeld, performing the duties and functions of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO and Nanette Thomas, Assistant General Counsel, Catalent, provided information and update on how the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact filings with the Patent Office, USPTO’s plans with regard to adopting DOCX and moving away from PDF filings, the USPTO broadening its diversity and inclusion in the innovation economy, and support of the National Council for Expanding American Innovation and operations of the USPTO in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lynda L. Calderone, presented an overview of the Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC, Appeal No. 20-440 on petition from a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Appeal Nos. 2019-2054 and 2019-2081, Ms. Calderone explained the main issue of Minerva Surgical, Inc.’s (“Minerva”) appeal to the Supreme Court: “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” See, Petitioner’s Brief, Question Presented, at page (i).
Alicia Russo, presented on overview of the Fintiv Factors from Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) and as applied in Masimo. Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc SRK Technology LLC v. Snap, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-20515-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal.). The Board formally explicated prior decisions and identified a nonexclusive list of factors (Fintive Factors) on whether to institute where there is a parallel district court action:
1. whether the district court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision;
3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding;
5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and
6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits.
Chris Holshouser, presented an explanation of the new guidelines for PTAB Proceedings as provided in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe Gmbh, IPR2018-00600 (PTAB july 6, 2020). A Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”), concluded that in the conduct of an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Board “may, in certain rare circumstances, raise a ground of unpatentability that a petitioner did not advance, or insufficiently developed, against substitute claims proposed in a motion to amend.” Hunting Titan at 4. Correspondingly, the POP concluded that where the Board raises a new ground of unpatentability, the Board must provide the parties notice of, and an opportunity to respond to, any ground of unpatentability the Board has raised sua sponte. Thereafter, the USPTO published final rules in the Federal Register which implemented the POP decision in Hunting Titan. The new rules, 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d) for inter partes review and 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(d) post-grant review, incorporate the holdings of Hunting Titan with regard to the burden of persuasion on the parties for proposed substitute claims, the discretion of the Board to grant or deny a motion to amend based on “readily identifiable and persuasive evidence of record,” and the right of the parties to respond.
 | | Practice Areas: | | Intellectual Property Law | | | Online Media Type: | | Video | | | Production Date: | | 06/02/2021 | | | Level: | | Intermediate | | | Category: | | Standard | | | Duration: | | 1 Hours, 23 Minutes | | | Online Format: | | On Demand | | | 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 |
| | |
|
| Click on the jurisdiction to view credit eligibility details for this program
AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CEU, CO, CT, GA, GU, MO, MS, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NV, NY-EXPER, NY-TRANS, UK-BSB, UK-SRA, VI, VT, WV
West LegalEdcenter provides accreditation as described here. You may be able to self apply for credits in states not listed.
Request credits for a state not listed.
Check your state requirements and get contact information. | | |
|
|
| | • | Drew Hirshfeld - Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office | | • | Alicia Russo - Venable | Fitzpatrick | | • | Lynda Calderone - Calderone Bullock LLC | | • | Chris Holshouser - Getz Balich |
| | |
|