On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Patent Litigation 2013

Released on: Nov. 25, 2013
Running Time: 12:35:37

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:10:27] Parallel Patent Reexaminations and PTAB Proceedings George E. Badenoch ~ Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:03:09] Recent Developments and Changes in Patent Law and Their Effects on Patent Litigation Elaine Herrmann Blais ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Nicholas K. Mitrokostas ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:06:42] Trends in ITC Practice Bert C. Reiser ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Hon. Theodore R. Essex ~ Administrative Law Judge, United States International Trade Commission
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:01:30] Three Years After Bilski - The Patentability Of Business Methods Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:56] Keynote: The AIA and Its Effects After Two Years David J. Kappos ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:03:43] Before the Trial - The Pleadings, Motions and Other Factors that Determine What Gets to Trial in a Patent Case Constance S Huttner ~ Budd Larner PC
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:05:18] Patent Damages Peter E. Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Charles River Associates
Jennifer BianRosa ~ Dickstein Shapiro LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:57] Willful Infringement and Current Defensive Strategies Heather A. Faltin ~ Senior Patent Counsel, Comcast Cable Communications LLC
David Brightman ~ VP, Associate General Counsel - IP Litigation, Yahoo Inc.
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:01:29] Dealing With Experts, Including Rule 26 Employee Experts Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:29] Infringement Based on the Acts of Multiple Parties Gene W. Lee ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:00:36] Expert Direct/Cross-Examination Timothy Sullivan ~ Faegre Baker Daniels
David J.F. Gross ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:32] Ethical Issues in Patent Litigation C. Edward Polk, Jr. ~ Chief Litigation Officer, Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
On-Demand MP3 MP4

Rapid changes in patent law make it necessary that, whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you are up-to-date on the current state of the law and can quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. This program is taught by a faculty of both outside and in-house lawyers who have earned national reputations in patent litigation by trying and managing a wide variety of bench and jury patent trials, and provides comprehensive coverage of every phase of a patent lawsuit. Through lecture and demonstration, you will be able to hone your patent litigation skills in just two days.

The program schedule has been totally revised based on comments from prior year attendees at this popular annual event, and many new sessions have been added to address hot topic developments over the last year.

Lecture Topics 
[Total time 012:35:37]

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

  • Program Overview* [00:01:49]
    Christopher K. Hu
  • Parallel Patent Reexaminations and PTAB Proceedings [01:10:27]
    George E. Badenoch
  • Recent Developments and Changes in Patent Law and Their Effects on Patent Litigation [01:03:09]
    Elaine Herrmann Blais, Nicholas K. Mitrokostas
  • Trends in ITC Practice [01:06:42]
    Hon. Theodore R. Essex, Bert C. Reiser
  • Three Years After Bilski - The Patentability Of Business Methods [01:01:30]
    Carolyn H. Blankenship
  • Keynote: The AIA and Its Effects After Two Years [01:00:56]
    David J. Kappos
  • Before the Trial - the Pleadings, Motions and Other Factors that Determine What Gets to Trial in a Patent Case [01:03:43]
    Constance S. Huttner
  • Patent Damages [01:05:18]
    Jennifer BianRosa, Peter E. Schwechheimer
  • Willful Infringement and Current Defensive Strategies [00:59:57]
    David Brightman, Heather A. Faltin
  • Dealing With Experts, Including Rule 26 Employee Experts [01:01:29]
    Eric J. Lobenfeld
  • Infringement Based on the Acts of Multiple Parties [01:00:29]
    Gene W. Lee
  • Expert Direct/Cross-Examination [01:00:36]
    David J.F. Gross, Timothy Sullivan
  • Ethical Issues in Patent Litigation [00:59:32]
    C. Edward Polk, Jr.

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

  • Recent Developments in Patent Law and Their Impact on Patent Litigation
    Elaine Herrmann Blais, Nicholas K. Mitrokostas
  • Recent Developments at the ITC: Frand and Domestic Industry
    Doris Johnson Hines
  • Three Years After Bilski—The Patentability of Business Methods, August 8, 2013
    Marc V. Richards
  • Business Method Patents—Where are we Now?, July 25, 2013
    Carolyn H. Blankenship
  • Parallel Patent Reexaminations and PTAB Proceedings
    George E. Badenoch
  • Problems in Patent Litigation: Standing, Lost Profits and Injunctions
    James R. Ferguson
  • Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages—What They are Like After Uniloc
    Neil C. Jones
  • Assessing and Responding to Willfulness Claims Post-Bard
    David Brightman, Heather A. Faltin
  • Experts in Patent Cases: Getting the Most Out of Your Star Witness, August 2013
    Christopher G. Hanewicz, Michelle M. Umberger
  • Issues Concerning Experts in Patent Litigation, 2013
    Eric J. Lobenfeld
  • Splitting Joint Infringement: Understanding Akamai and McKesson
    Gene W. Lee
  • How to be an Expert on Experts in Patent Jury Trials, July 26, 2013
    David J.F. Gross, Kevin P. Wagner
  • Patent Litigation Ethics 2013, August, 2013
    Julianne M. Hartzell

Presentation Material

  • Parallel Proceedings in the USPTO
  • Recent Developments in Patent Law And Their Impact on Patent Litigation
    Elaine Herrmann Blais, Nicholas K. Mitrokostas
  • Trends in ITC Practice
    Bert C. Reiser
  • Business Method Patents: Where Are We Now?
    Carolyn H. Blankenship
  • Status Update: America Invents Act, Patent Prosecution Highway, Worksharing and Cooperative Classification
  • Before the Trial - the Pleadings, Motions and Other Factors that Determine What Gets to Trial in a Patent Case
  • Before the Trial – the Pleadings, Motions and Other Factors that Determine What Gets to Trial in a Patent Case
    Constance S. Huttner
  • Patent Damages
    Jennifer BianRosa, Peter E. Schwechheimer
  • Willful Infringement and Current Defensive Strategies
    David Brightman, Heather A. Faltin
  • Dealing With Experts, Including Rule 26 Employee Experts
    Eric J. Lobenfeld
  • Infringement Based on the Acts of Multiple Parties
    Gene W. Lee
  • Practicing Law Institute Patent Litigation 2013 Ethical Issues in Patent Litigation November 12, 2013
    C. Edward Polk, Jr.
Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
Jennifer BianRosa ~ Dickstein Shapiro LLP
Elaine Herrmann Blais ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
David Brightman ~ VP, Associate General Counsel - IP Litigation, Yahoo Inc.
Hon. Theodore R. Essex ~ Administrative Law Judge, United States International Trade Commission
Heather A. Faltin ~ Senior Patent Counsel, Comcast Cable Communications LLC
David J.F. Gross ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Constance S Huttner ~ Budd Larner PC
David J. Kappos ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Nicholas K. Mitrokostas ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
C. Edward Polk, Jr. ~ Chief Litigation Officer, Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Bert C. Reiser ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Peter E. Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Charles River Associates
Timothy Sullivan ~ Faegre Baker Daniels

PLI makes every effort to accredit its On-Demand Web Programs and Segments.  Please check the Credit Information box to the right of each product description for credit 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.


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.

 
Print Share Email