Fitch Even News Feed Sep 2017 00:00:00 -0800firmwise Even Congratulates AABA Chicago on 30 Years of Service<p>Fitch Even is pleased to be a sponsor of the Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago's 30<sup>th</sup> Annual Installation Ceremony and Awards Reception being held tonight at MingHin Cuisine in Chicago. We commend AABA Chicago for its three decades of service to Asian American legal professionals and community members throughout Chicagoland.</p> <p><a href="">AABA Chicago</a> was founded in 1987 as an affiliate of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. The organization strives to promote the professional growth of its members; mentor law students and new lawyers; serve and educate the local community; partner with other minority organizations on common matters of concern; and offer policy recommendations on legal, social, political, and economic interests.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>Professional Activities14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Your Moat: Using Continuation Applications to Protect Commercially Successful Products join Fitch, Even, Tabin &amp; Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, &ldquo;<a href="">Widening Your Moat: Using Continuation Applications to Protect Commercially Successful Products</a>,&rdquo; on Thursday, September 28, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12 noon EDT.<br /> <br /> Protecting a commercially successful product is critical for any business. Although patents can help to prevent others from utilizing covered technology, recent trends in case law and post-issuance validity challenges introduced by the American Invents Act have made it more difficult for businesses to effectively enforce patents against competitors. Continuation applications can be an important tool for bolstering patent protection for key products, providing the patent owner leverage in negotiations and enforcement.<br /> <br /> This webinar will provide tips and strategies on how to use continuation applications to <ul> <li style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">Limit design-arounds that use similar technology</li> <li style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">Target commercial products</li> <li style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">Expand the scope of patent protection</li> <li style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">Mitigate invalidity challenges</li> <li style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">Avoid antitrust pitfalls</li> </ul> <div style="margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span style="line-height: normal;">Our speakers will be Fitch Even partners <a href=";A=2622&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Jonathan H. Urbanek</a> and <a href=";A=2567&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Mark A. Borsos</a>. </span></div> <div style="margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span style="line-height: normal;"><br /> Jon focuses his IP law practice on patent preparation and prosecution and advises clients working in diverse technologies on issues including freedom-to-operate decisions, product design-arounds, and competitive technology analysis.</span></div> <div style="margin-bottom: 0pt;"><span style="line-height: normal;"><br /> Mark has comprehensive experience in patent preparation, prosecution, and litigation, with a significant focus on patent post-issuance proceedings. He also assists clients with product clearance and licensing issues, as well as strategic patent portfolio creation and management.</span><br /> &nbsp;</div> <div style="margin-bottom: 0pt;">CLE credit has been approved for California and Illinois and is pending in Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but please note registration is required.&nbsp;To reserve your place, please&nbsp;<a _mce_href="" _mce_style="color: #007db1; text-decoration: underline;" href="" linktype="1" target="_blank" track="on">REGISTER HERE</a>.&nbsp;<br /> &nbsp;</div> Upcoming Webinars05 Sep 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: Federal Circuit to Review Ruling on USPTO Attorneys’ Fee Awards<p>The Federal Circuit <a href="">announced</a> today that it will rehear en banc <i>Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, </i>a June 2017 decision holding that a party who brings a civil action against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 145 must pay USPTO attorneys&rsquo; fees as part of the costs of the proceeding, regardless of the outcome (discussed in our alert <a href=";an=67156&amp;anc=180&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5486">here</a>).</p> <p>The court will consider the following issue:</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">Did the panel in <i>NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal</i>, 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) correctly determine that 35 U.S.C. &sect; 145&rsquo;s &ldquo;[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings&rdquo; provision authorizes an award of the United States Patent and Trademark Office&rsquo;s attorneys&rsquo; fees?</p> <p>Fitch Even attorneys are monitoring this case and will report its outcome in a future alert.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><b>Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;<br /> </sup></b></p>IP Alerts31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: PTAB Will Use Different Standard Than Courts for Indefiniteness<p>In a rare precedential decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) confirmed it will continue to view a claim as indefinite when &ldquo;it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.&rdquo; In this recent decision in <a href="/2E8FB4/assets/files/Documents/Ex Parte McAward 2017_08_25.pdf"><i>James G. McAward et al.</i></a>, the PTAB declined to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court&rsquo;s standard for definiteness as applied in district court patent litigation&mdash;that a claim is indefinite if it does not &ldquo;inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.&rdquo; The PTAB attributed the distinction to the differing roles of the USPTO and the courts in the patent system and to the different claim construction standards used by these entities.</p> <p>Under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 112, a patent specification must conclude with &ldquo;one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter&rdquo; regarded as the invention. This is known as the &ldquo;definiteness&rdquo; requirement in patent law, the purpose of which is to &ldquo;secure to the patentee all to which he is entitled&rdquo; and &ldquo;apprise the public of what is still open to them.&rdquo; Ironically, the standard for evaluating definiteness is not exactly definite itself and has changed through the years. Most recently, in <i>Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.</i>, the Supreme Court replaced an &ldquo;insolubly ambiguous&rdquo; standard with one that &ldquo;require[s] that a patent&rsquo;s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.&rdquo;</p> <p>Meanwhile, the USPTO has declined to use either the pre- or post-<i>Nautilus</i> standards for definiteness. It has instead used the <i>Packard</i> standard, which establishes prima facie indefiniteness when &ldquo;after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim,&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear.&rdquo; Although the <i>Nautilus</i> decision marked a change in the standard for indefiniteness used by courts in litigation, the PTAB confirmed in this decision that it did not understand <i>Nautilus</i> to mandate a change in the USPTO&rsquo;s approach to indefiniteness and will continue to apply the <i>Packard</i> standard.</p> <p>Why is there one standard in the USPTO and another in the courts? According to the PTAB, the distinction is a consequence of another difference in the way patent claims are evaluated by the USPTO. The USPTO applies a &ldquo;broadest reasonable interpretation&rdquo; (BRI) standard for claim construction, which differs from the narrower <i>Phillips</i> standard used during patent litigation in the federal courts. Under BRI, claim terms are given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification.</p> <p>In contrast, when construing patent claims, district courts consider the claims, specification, and prosecution history, as well as evidence extrinsic to the patent. Because the BRI standard focuses on the patent specification and excludes the other types of evidence taken into account under the <i>Phillips</i> standard, the <i>Phillips</i> standard can sometimes produce a narrower construction than the BRI standard. Application of the BRI standard in the USPTO has been approved by the Supreme Court because during prosecution of a patent, the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to overcome a rejection. In other words, an indefiniteness rejection begins what is intended to be an interactive process in which the applicant has an opportunity to respond to the rejection. However, in district courts, the language of an issued patent is static. The patent owner no longer has the opportunity to amend the claims in the context of the litigation. This, according to the PTAB, justifies its departure from the Supreme Court&rsquo;s <i>Nautilus</i> standard for indefiniteness and its use of the <i>Packard</i> standard, which it described as setting a &ldquo;lower threshold&rdquo; for ambiguity. &nbsp;</p> <p>This decision is important because patent applicants and litigants alike need to understand that the standard for indefiniteness in the USPTO differs from the standard in the courts. During prosecution, it is unlikely that responding to an indefiniteness rejection under &sect;&nbsp;112 by citing the <i>Nautilus </i>standard will gain traction with an examiner. The PTAB&rsquo;s decision should not result in any change in how claims are evaluated in the USPTO, but the decision has clarified that the <i>Nautilus </i>standard does not apply in the USPTO.</p> <p>One question left unanswered by this decision relates to the USPTO&rsquo;s review of patents post-issuance. For example, under the AIA post-grant review procedure, patents may be reviewed within the first nine months of their issuance. In that procedure, a recently issued patent may be challenged on indefiniteness grounds. It is unclear, in that context, which standard would apply. Presumably, since that proceeding is in the USPTO, its <i>Packard</i> standard will apply rather than the <i>Nautilus</i> standard. However, the justification for application of the <i>Packard</i> standard may not be as forceful in the context of a post-grant review proceeding where a patent owner must file a motion for leave to amend the claims, which the PTAB rarely grants. (In a 2016 study by the USPTO, motions to amend claims were filed in only 10 percent of completed and pending trials and granted in only 2 percent of those motions.)</p> <p>In addition, the PTAB&rsquo;s decision in <i>McAward</i> may be affected by the Supreme Court&rsquo;s upcoming review of <i>Oil States Energy Services vs. Greene&rsquo;s Energy Group</i>. As reported in our earlier alert <a href=";an=66733&amp;anc=180&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5486">here</a>, the Court will consider the constitutionality of AIA post-grant review procedures, including its claim amendment process and application of the BRI standard, both of which served as the basis of the PTAB&rsquo;s decision to use the <i>Packard</i> standard for indefiniteness.&nbsp;</p> <p>For more information on this ruling, please contact Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=2603&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Joseph F. Marinelli</a>, author of this alert.</p> <p><br /> <b>Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;<br /> </sup></b></p>IP Alerts30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Even Partner Amanda Lowerre O’Donnell to Present at PLI Patent Prosecution Workshop<p>Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=2599&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Amanda Lowerre O&rsquo;Donnell</a> will be a featured presenter during four sessions of the Practising Law Institute&rsquo;s Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2017: Claim Drafting &amp; Amendment Writing, taking place on September 12&ndash;13, 2017, at the University of Chicago Gleacher Center. The program is designed for private or corporate practitioners with patent experience who seek to improve their general claim drafting and amendment writing skills, as well as learn practical techniques for avoiding prosecution pitfalls.</p> <p>On September 12, Amanda will be one of three instructors facilitating an interactive workshop on &ldquo;Advanced Claim Drafting&rdquo; related to the electromechanical field. During this session, attendees will receive individualized feedback from the faculty on claim-drafting exercises.</p> <p>On September 13, Amanda will present a session on &ldquo;Advanced Patent Prosecution Issues,&rdquo; covering topics specific to the electromechanical arts, including the use of means-plus-function claims, how to decide whether and when to amend or not amend claims, and how to structure patentability arguments to gain allowance while minimizing estoppel. Later that day, she will co-facilitate an interactive workshop on &ldquo;Advanced Amendment Drafting,&rdquo; guiding participants as they draft amendments and apply substantive patent law to practical patent prosecution problems.</p> <p>In the closing session of the conference, Amanda will join other faculty members in a roundtable discussion of USPTO trends and available resources across all technology areas and will provide tips and recommend strategies for effectively prosecuting applications in view of these trends.</p> <p>For more information on the workshop, please visit the <a href=";t=CPK7_FCLTY">PLI website</a>.</p> <p>This is the fourth consecutive year that Amanda has served on the faculty of this annual PLI Patent Prosecution Workshop. Amanda focuses her practice primarily on patent prosecution, patent licensing, and commercial clearance assessments. She counsels clients in the U.S. and abroad working in a variety of technical fields and product applications, including electronic components, energy and renewable energy applications, food processing, packaging technology, and medical devices. In addition, Amanda regularly advises clients on business method protections as well as open-source software issues.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>Professional Activities18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: Court Clarifies Scope of IPR Estoppel<p>Last week, the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion addressing the scope of estoppel that attaches upon filing a petition for <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR). The case, <a href="/2E8FB4/assets/files/Documents/Oil-Dri Corp. of America v. Nestl&eacute; Purina Petcare Co..pdf"><i>Oil-Dri Corp. of America v. Nestl&eacute; Purina Petcare Co.</i></a>, is in conflict with other courts that have addressed similar issues. This case is of interest to patentees and petitioners concerned with potential surrender of invalidity defenses through IPR estoppel.</p> <p>After Oil-Dri filed a patent infringement suit against Purina, Purina filed an IPR petition before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,975,019 on multiple grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR on some, but not all, of the premised grounds. In its final decision, the PTAB ruled that Purina failed to show invalidity via any of the instituted grounds. Purina is currently appealing this decision.</p> <p>Per 35 U.S.C. &sect; 315(e), IPR estoppel prevents a petitioner, or real party in interest, from asserting an invalidity defense on &ldquo;any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that <i>inter partes</i> review.&rdquo; Oil-Dri sought to preclude Purina from raising various&nbsp;defenses based on IPR estoppel. Specifically, Oil-Dri argued that Purina is estopped from asserting (1) invalidity grounds Purina raised in its IPR petition but not instituted by the PTAB (&ldquo;noninstituted grounds&rdquo;), and (2) grounds Purina did not raise in its petition that it could have reasonably raised (&ldquo;nonpetitioned grounds&rdquo;).</p> <p>The court ruled that IPR estoppel does not apply to noninstituted grounds. Section 315(e) creates estoppel based on &ldquo;any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised <strong>during</strong><b> </b>that <i>inter partes</i> review&rdquo; (emphasis added). The court reasoned that an IPR proceeding begins at institution, and thus only the instituted grounds are raised during the <i>inter partes</i> review. The court additionally relied on the right of &ldquo;due process and fairness&rdquo; to reach this conclusion, because a denial of petition is not a final decision rejecting an invalidity contention.</p> <p>In the IPR proceedings, Purina challenged validity over a combination of two references, reference A and reference B, both individually and in combination. The PTAB had agreed to hear the challenge based on the combination of references A and B, but declined to hear the challenges based individually on reference A and on reference B. Purina sought to assert these separate invalidity challenges at trial, and Oil-Dri moved to preclude these defenses on the grounds of IPR estoppel. In a split from other districts (including the Eastern District of Texas in <i>Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> and the Northern District of California in <i>Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.</i>), the court held that IPR estoppel did not apply under these circumstances. (Note that in both of the above-mentioned cases, the combination of A and B was raised in the petition, but grounds applying A and B individually were not.)</p> <p>The court reasoned that because the PTAB did not institute the IPR based on the individual reference challenges, it did not believe these grounds to be subsets of the combination. The court also put weight on the PTAB&rsquo;s conclusion that Purina did &ldquo;not . . . explain persuasively how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the features&rdquo; of the two references, as opposed to ruling on whether or not the combined features rendered the claims obvious.</p> <p>Lastly, the court ruled that IPR estoppel does apply to invalidity grounds that were not raised in the IPR petition, which the petitioner reasonably could have raised. The Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on this question, and several district courts are split based on the &ldquo;during that <i>inter partes</i> review&rdquo; language of the statute discussed above. Purina contended that it could only reasonably have raised invalidity grounds that the PTAB actually considered, while Oil-Dri contended that Purina was estopped from raising any invalidity defenses Purina might have tried to raise in its IPR petition. The court reasoned that there was a meaningful difference between grounds that the petitioner attempted to raise versus grounds that the petitioner did not attempt to raise. Where the petitioner tried to raise a challenge but the PTAB declined to hear it, concluded the court, the petitioner cannot be faulted for having failed to reasonably bring this challenge before the PTAB. But where the petitioner chose not to include certain challenges, or neglected to include them, there is no denial of due process to the petitioner. The court further pointed out that under Purina&rsquo;s interpretation, where estoppel applied only to challenges actually considered by the PTAB, the language &ldquo;or reasonably could have been raised&rdquo; in &sect; 315 would have no meaning.</p> <p>Purina did not propose a definition for what constitutes prior art that the petitioner &ldquo;reasonably could have raised.&rdquo; As a result, the court accepted Oil-Dri&rsquo;s proposal that the scope of estoppel encompasses prior art that &ldquo;a skilled researcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover.&rdquo; &nbsp;</p> <p>This ruling reflects the rapidly evolving area of IPR estoppel case law. The Federal Circuit is expected to resolve some of the questions raised in this case as the law continues to develop.</p> <p><i>--Written by Fitch Even attorney <a href=";A=9296&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Donald R. Bunton</a></i></p> <p><b><br /> Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;</sup></b></p>IP Alerts10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: Federal Circuit Clarifies Standing Requirement<p>On August 7, 2017, in <a href=""><i>Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation</i></a>, the Federal Circuit clarified that parties that are not invoking the authority of federal courts do not need to meet the constitutional standing requirements to participate as respondents in federal court proceedings.</p> <p>Respondent Electronic Frontier Foundation (&ldquo;EFF&rdquo;), a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of consumers of digital technology, filed a petition for <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) regarding a patent assigned to petitioner Personal Audio. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that certain claims of Personal Audio&rsquo;s patent were invalid. Personal Audio appealed the PTAB&rsquo;s decision to the Federal Circuit.</p> <p>During the briefing period, the Federal Circuit asked the parties to address whether respondent EFF had standing to participate in the appeal proceeding in view of the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s holding in <i>Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation</i>. That case held that &ldquo;a PTAB petitioner that does not meet the Article III case-or-controversy requirement does not have standing to invoke judicial power, and thus does not have standing to appeal to this court from a PTAB decision on <i>inter partes</i> reexamination.&rdquo; The court in <i>Consumer Watchdog</i> stated that &ldquo;although Article III standing is not necessarily a requirement to appear before an administrative agency, once a party seeks review in a federal court, &lsquo;the constitutional requirement that it have standing kicks in&rsquo;&rdquo; (quoting the D.C. Circuit case <i>Sierra Club v. E.P.A.</i>). Thus, the Federal Circuit held that &ldquo;Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit organization described as representing the public interest, did not have standing to appeal to the Federal Circuit from the PTAB decision that sustained the validity of the patent Consumer Watchdog had challenged.&rdquo;</p> <p>In the <i>Personal Audio</i> case, the Federal Circuit determined that <i>Consumer Watchdog</i> was inapplicable because &ldquo;EFF is not the appellant.&rdquo; In making this determination, the court relied on the earlier U.S. Supreme Court case <i>ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish</i>, which held that &ldquo;standing to appeal is measured for the party &lsquo;seek[ing] entry to the federal courts for the first time in the lawsuit&rdquo;:</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">Although respondents would not have had standing to commence suit in federal court based on the allegations in the complaint, they are not the party attempting to invoke the federal judicial power. Instead it is petitioners, the defendants in the case and the losing parties below, who bring the case here and thus seek entry to the federal courts for the first time in the lawsuit.</p> <p>In addition, the Federal Circuit referred to <i>U.S. Department of Labor v. Triplett</i>, where the Supreme Court stated, &ldquo;Because respondent has not invoked the authority of any federal court, then, federal standing principles are simply inapplicable to him.&rdquo;</p> <p>Accordingly, the Federal Circuit determined that the party invoking the authority of the Federal Circuit was Personal Audio, which had proper standing under Article III. &ldquo;With Article III satisfied as to the appellant,&rdquo; the court held, &ldquo;EFF is not constitutionally excluded from appearing in court to defend the PTAB decision in its favor.&rdquo;</p> <p>The case confirms that successful PTAB petitioners may participate in the patent owner&rsquo;s appeal from any adverse PTAB decision.</p> <p>For more information, please contact Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=3589&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Eric L. Broxterman</a>, author of this alert.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><b>Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;</sup></b></p>IP Alerts09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Even Partners and Staff Participate in ChiWIP/GirlForward Mentoring Event<p>Fitch Even partners <a href=";A=2598&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Nicole L. Little</a> and <a href=";A=2617&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Alisa C. Simmons</a> helped coordinate a &ldquo;speed career networking&rdquo; event presented by <a href="">Chicago Women in IP</a> (ChiWIP) on July 27, 2017, in partnership with <a href="">GirlForward</a>, a nonprofit dedicated to creating opportunities for refugee girls through mentoring and after-school programs. During the event, ChiWIP members and other women professionals met with 32 high-school girls, along with their interpreters and camp counselors, to discuss career opportunities open to them in a wide variety of industries.</p> <p>Among the volunteer mentors advising the young women were Fitch Even graphic design and digital media specialist Julie Harshbarger and paralegal Anne Haag. Julie discussed opportunities available in the graphic and digital arts and other creative design fields. Anne shared information gleaned from her work as an activist involved in several Chicago-area advocacy groups including the Ladylike Project, an artistic collective she founded that raises money for smaller local nonprofits.</p> <p>The Fitch Even volunteers remarked on how impressed they were with the young women&rsquo;s determination to focus on their education and forge ahead to better their lives and fulfill their career ambitions despite the obstacles they&rsquo;ve encountered. More information on GirlForward and their mission to assist young refugees can be found on their <a href="">website.</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Community Activities07 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 Even and Wood IP Form Strategic Alliance<p>Fitch, Even, Tabin &amp; Flannery LLP is pleased to announce the formation of a strategic alliance with Washington, D.C.-area intellectual property law firm <a href="">Wood IP LLC</a><span>.</span> Our goal is to offer clients an expanded range of sophisticated IP legal services provided by exceptionally skilled lawyers with the diverse backgrounds and varied perspectives needed to succeed in today&rsquo;s global marketplace. The alliance is not a partnership, and Fitch Even and Wood IP remain separate legal entities.</p> <p>Wood IP is a minority- and veteran-owned firm, certified as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) in Maryland and a Veteran-Owned Small Business. Its lawyers and other patent professionals have particularly strong experience protecting and advocating for&nbsp;the IP rights of&nbsp;technology companies and entrepreneurs, helping them navigate the complexities of IP law and grow market share. Eight of nine Wood IP patent professionals hold at least one advanced technical degree, including five PhDs. More information on the firm can be found on its <a href="">website</a>.</p> <p>This strategic alliance will enable our firms to support each other&rsquo;s complementary practices and to co-counsel on matters where our combined experience can provide enhanced value. We look forward to collaborating with the Wood IP team in future representations.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><img align="absmiddle" alt="" border="0" height="80" hspace="0" src=" logo 4.jpg" vspace="0" width="200" /><br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> Firm News04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 -0800 AIA 102: Prior Art Exceptions and Declaration Practice<p>Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin &amp; Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, &ldquo;Understanding AIA 102: Prior Art Exceptions and Declaration Practice,&rdquo; on Thursday, August 17, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.</p> <p>More and more patent applications now being examined and granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are first-inventor-to-file applications under the America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA redefined which documents and activities constitute prior art that may be used to reject patent applications and invalidate patents.</p> <p>During this webinar, Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=8389&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Alan E. Schiavelli</a> will provide attendees with a basic understanding of the statutory framework of 35 U.S.C. &sect; 102, including the categories of prior art defined by the statute, the exceptions to those categories, and the manner in which the exceptions can be invoked. He will also discuss a recent Federal Circuit panel decision some see as undermining Congress&rsquo;s intent in establishing the AIA&rsquo;s on-sale bar.</p> <p>Specific topics will include these and more:</p> <ul> <li>Changes to prior public use and sale</li> <li>Prior art under 102(a)(1) and exceptions</li> <li>Prior art under 102(a)(2) and exceptions</li> <li>Declaration practice under AIA 102</li> <li>Ramifications of <i>Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals</i></li> </ul> <p>Our speaker <a href=";A=8389&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Alan E. Schiavelli</a> has 30 years of experience in strategically preparing and prosecuting patent applications for clients in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, as well as providing validity and infringement opinions, trademark availability studies and prosecution, and IP infringement litigation support.</p> <p>A recording of this webinar is available through August 16, 2018.<br /> &nbsp;</p> Past Webinars24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 -0800