On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Developments in Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law 2013

Released on: Apr. 15, 2013
Running Time: 06:16:32

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:06:40] Claim Construction in Pharma/Biotech Cases Daniel L. Reisner ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:46] Strategic Planning for Biosimilar Approvals Betty Ryberg ~ Vice President, IP Litigation, Novartis Corporation
David K. Barr ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:35] Major 2012 Decisions in Pharma/Biotech Stephen J. Elliott ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:01:20] Post-Grant Procedures under the America Invents Act Joseph M. Drayton ~ Cooley LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:01:25] In-House Panel on Pharma/Biotech Litigation Donna M. Meuth ~ Senior Patent Counsel - Intellectual Property, Eisai Inc.
Valeta A Gregg, Ph.D. ~ Vice-President and Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc
Thomas D. Smith ~ Assistant General Counsel (Patents), Global Litigation, G. S. K
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:42] Biotech and Pharma Licensing in Asia Grace L. Pan ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
Dr. Judy Jarecki-Black ~ Head, Intellectual Property, Merial Limited
On-Demand MP3 MP4

Pharmaceutical and biotech patent law is an important and rapidly changing practice area, and the program is designed to give you the information you need to maintain your practice edge, concentrating on new developments from 2012 and placing them in the context of constantly evolving areas of the law.

Technological innovation, Federal Circuit appellate oversight, and Supreme Court decisions continue to drive significant changes in the law. Several different perspectives on many of the most pressing issues will be offered from very experienced practitioners.

Do not miss this opportunity to fully understand the impact of new appellate decisions on your pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent practice.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 06:16:32]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Program Overview* [00:06:04]
    David K. Barr, Daniel L. Reisner
  • Claim Construction in Pharma/Biotech Cases [01:06:40]
    Daniel L. Reisner
  • Strategic Planning for Biosimilar Approvals [01:00:46]
    David K. Barr, Betty Ryberg
  • Major 2012 Decisions in Pharma/Biotech [01:00:35]
    Stephen J. Elliott
  • Post-Grant Procedures under the America Invents Act [01:01:20]
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • In-House Panel on Pharma/Biotech Litigation [01:01:25]
    Donna M. Meuth, Thomas D. Smith, Valeta A Gregg, Ph.D.
  • Biotech and Pharma Licensing in Asia [00:59:42]
    Grace L. Pan, Dr. Judy Jarecki-Black

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • Claim Construction Issues in Pharma and Biotech Cases
    Daniel L. Reisner
  • Biologic and Biosimilar Drug Products
    David K. Barr
  • Regulation of Biological Products, 42 U.S.C. § 262 (2010). (Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov)
    David K. Barr
  • Guidance for Industry: Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product, Draft Guidance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, (February 2012, Biosimilarity)
    David K. Barr
  • Guidance for Industry: Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product, Draft Guidance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, (February 2012, Biosimilarity)
    David K. Barr
  • Guidance for Industry: Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, Draft Guidance, US Dep't of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Admin., (Feb. 2012, Biosimilarity)
    David K. Barr
  • 2012 in Review: Case Law Developments in Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patents
    Stephen J. Elliott
  • An Overview of Recent Developments Regarding the America Invents Act
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Preissuance Submissions Final Rules Excerpt From: Changes to Implement the Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 42150 (July 17, 2012)
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Supplemental Examination Final Rules Excerpt From: Changes to Implement the Supplemental Examination Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and to Revise Reexamination Fees; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48828 (August 14, 2010)
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Inter Partes Review Final Forms Excerpt From: Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (August 14, 2012)
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Post-Grant Review Final Rules Excerpt From: Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (August 14, 2012)
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • PTAB Practice Final Rules Excerpt From: Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48612 (August 14, 2012)
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Technical Corrections Bill, H.R. 6621
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Licensing with Asia
    Daniel L. Reisner
  • Reprinted from the PLI Legal Treatise, Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law, (Order #15140)
  • Index to Developments in Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law 2013

Presentation Material

  • Claim Construction in Pharma/Biotech Cases
    Daniel L. Reisner
  • Strategic Planning for Biosimilar Approvals
    David K. Barr, Betty Ryberg
  • Major 2012 Decisions in Pharma/Biotech
    Stephen J. Elliott
  • Post-Grant Procedures under the America Invents Act
    Joseph M. Drayton
  • Pharmaceutical & Biotech Licensing in Asia
    Grace L. Pan, Dr. Judy Jarecki-Black
Co-Chair(s)
David K. Barr ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
Daniel L. Reisner ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
Speaker(s)
Joseph M. Drayton ~ Cooley LLP
Stephen J. Elliott ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Valeta A Gregg, Ph.D. ~ Vice-President and Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc
Dr. Judy Jarecki-Black ~ Head, Intellectual Property, Merial Limited
Donna M. Meuth ~ Senior Patent Counsel - Intellectual Property, Eisai Inc.
Grace L. Pan ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
Betty Ryberg ~ Vice President, IP Litigation, Novartis Corporation
Thomas D. Smith ~ Assistant General Counsel (Patents), Global Litigation, G. S. K

PLI makes every effort to accredit its On-Demand Web Programs and Segments.  Please check the CLE Calculator above for CLE information specific to your state.

On-Demand Web Programs and Segments are approved in:

Alabama1, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois , Iowa2*, Kansas, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Mississippi, Missouri3, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire4, New Jersey, New Mexico5, New York6,  North Carolina7, North Dakota, Ohio8, Oklahoma9, Oregon*, Pennsylvania10, Rhode Island11, South Carolina, Tennessee12, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia13, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin14 and Wyoming*.

Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin DO NOT approve Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs.

Minnesota 
approves live webcasts ONLY

Please Note: The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. PLI programs may qualify for credit based on the requirements outlined in the MCLE Regulations and Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.

*PLI will apply for credit upon request. Louisiana and New Hampshire: PLI will apply for credit upon request for audio-only on-demand web programs.


1Alabama: Approval of all web based programs is limited to a maximum of 6.0 credits.

 

2Iowa:  The approval is for one year from recorded date. Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.

3Missouri:  On-demand web programs are restricted to six hours of self-study credit per year.  Self-study may not be used to satisfy the ethics requirements.  Self-study can not be used for carryover credit.

 

4New Hamphsire:  The approval is for three years from recorded date.

5New Mexico:  On-Demand web programs are restricted to 4.0 self-study credits per year. 


6New York:  Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-traditional course formats such as on-demand Web Programs or live Webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats. 

7North Carolina:  A maximum of 4 credits per reporting period may be earned by participating in on-demand web programs. 


8Ohio:  To confirm that the web program has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us.  Online programs are considered self-study.  Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per compliance period.  The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.

9Oklahoma:  Up to 6 credits may be earned each year through computer-based or technology-based legal education programs.


10Pennsylvania:  PA attorneys may only receive a maximum of four (4) hours of distance learning credit per compliance period. All distance learning programs must be a minimum of 1 full hour.
 

11Rhode Island:  Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs are not approved for credit.  On-Demand Web Programs must have an audio and video component.

12Tennessee:  The approval is for the calendar year in which the live program was presented.

13Virginia: All distance learning courses are to be done in an educational setting, free from distractions.

14Wisconsin: Ethics credit is not allowed.  The ethics portion of the program will be approved for general credit.  There is a 10 credit limit for on-demand web programs during every 2-year reporting period.  Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.


Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon and keynote speakers.


If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.


Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, call Customer Service (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or e-mail info@pli.edu.

 
Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Developments in Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law 2013 Daniel L. Reisner, Kaye Scholer LLP
David K. Barr, Kaye Scholer LLP
 
Developments in Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law 2012 Daniel L. Reisner, Kaye Scholer LLP
David K. Barr, Kaye Scholer LLP
 
Print Share Email