in
Advanced Search
On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs
  Also Available in:  On-Demand Audio CD On-Demand DVD Video

How to Effectively Prosecute AIA Post-Grant Proceedings 2012

Released on: Oct. 17, 2012
Running Time: 05:20:22

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:05:30] The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part One Irem Yucel ~ Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), United States Patent and Trademark Office
Stephen C. Durant ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Rajiv P. Patel ~ Fenwick & West LLP
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:40] The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part Two Irem Yucel ~ Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), United States Patent and Trademark Office
Chris Benson ~ Harrison Goddard Foote
Kevin Greenleaf ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Stephen C. Durant ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Bijal V. Vakil ~ White & Case LLP
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:05:10] Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part One Lissi Mojica ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Linda Beach ~ Patent Attorney, Electronic Arts
Darren E. Donnelly ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Rajiv P. Patel ~ Fenwick & West LLP
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:01:35] Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part Two Hon. Michael P. Tierney ~ Lead Administrative Patent Judge, Trial Section, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Virginia K. DeMarchi ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Rajiv P. Patel ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Renee DuBord Brown ~ Senior Vice President, Litigation, Tessera Technologies, Inc.
 On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:40] Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part Three Lissi Mojica ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Hon. Michael P. Tierney ~ Lead Administrative Patent Judge, Trial Section, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Stephen C. Durant ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Peter P. Chen ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Robert McHenry ~ Litigation Counsel, Zynga Inc.
 On-Demand MP3 MP4

The America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant proceedings effectively hybridize patent litigation and prosecution practices to yield new procedures to challenge or reinforce granted patents. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rules to implement the AIA will be fully effective by September 17, 2012.

Our expert, experienced faculty of in-house and law firm attorneys, as well as senior PTO officials, will help you learn what you must know to succeed in the new environment.

This seminar details the diverse skill set necessary to critically evaluate, file, and effectively prosecute these proceedings. Take away what you need to know to file and respond to petitions and conduct discovery, motion practice and trial before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 05:20:22]

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

  • Program Overview* [00:08:47]
    Stephen C. Durant, Rajiv P. Patel
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part One [01:05:30]
    Irem Yucel, Stephen C. Durant, Rajiv P. Patel
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part Two [00:59:40]
    Irem Yucel, Chris Benson, Kevin Greenleaf, Stephen C. Durant, Bijal V. Vakil
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part One [01:05:10]
    Darren E. Donnelly, Rajiv P. Patel, Lissi Mojica, Linda Beach
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part Two [01:01:35]
    Virginia K. DeMarchi, Hon. Michael P. Tierney, Renee DuBord Brown, Rajiv P. Patel
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part Three [00:59:40]
    Hon. Michael P. Tierney, Lissi Mojica, Stephen C. Durant, Peter P. Chen, Robert McHenry

Presentation Material

  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part One
    Rajiv P. Patel
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part One
    Irem Yucel
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part Two
    Chris Benson
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part Two (Power Point Slides)
    Kevin Greenleaf
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part Two (Power Point Slides)
    Irem Yucel
  • The New Framework for Resolving Patent Disputes within the PTO, Part Two
    Irem Yucel, Chris Benson, Kevin Greenleaf, Stephen C. Durant, Bijal V. Vakil
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part One
    Darren E. Donnelly
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part One (Power Point Slides)
    Lissi Mojica
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part Two (Power Point Slides)
    Hon. Michael P. Tierney
  • Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, Part Three (Power Point Slides)
    Hon. Michael P. Tierney
Co-Chair(s)
Stephen C. Durant ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Rajiv P. Patel ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Speaker(s)
Linda Beach ~ Patent Attorney, Electronic Arts
Chris Benson ~ Harrison Goddard Foote
Renee DuBord Brown ~ Senior Vice President, Litigation, Tessera Technologies, Inc.
Peter P. Chen ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Virginia K. DeMarchi ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Darren E. Donnelly ~ Fenwick & West LLP
Kevin Greenleaf ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Robert McHenry ~ Litigation Counsel, Zynga Inc.
Lissi Mojica ~ Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Hon. Michael P. Tierney ~ Lead Administrative Patent Judge, Trial Section, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Bijal V. Vakil ~ White & Case LLP
Irem Yucel ~ Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), United States Patent and Trademark Office

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 Carolina8, 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

The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement.

*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.

 
Print Share Email
  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • RSS
  • facebook
  • twitter

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2013 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.