Seminar  Program

Patent Litigation 2017: Advanced Techniques & Best Practices


Select a Location:

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Jeanne M. Gills

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Brent A. Hawkins, Sharon A. Hwang

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
John A. Marlott, Laura Beth Miller

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds.  However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions?  Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness?  Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Meredith Marin Addy, Reginald J. Hill

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer.  A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table.  Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal.  In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed.
Jeffrey N. Costakos

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions.  For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Michael I. Cohen, Shira J. Kapplin, Paul R. Steadman

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In adddition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Herbert H. Finn, Julianne M. Hartzell

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Kara E. F. Cenar, R. David Donoghue

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
David K. Callahan, Julia Mano Johnson, Panel Leaders; Hon. Edmond E. Chang, Hon. Roy Payne, Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno, Hon. Sidney I. Schenkier

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
David K. Callahan, Julia Mano Johnson, Panel Leaders; Hon. Edmond E. Chang, Hon. Roy Payne

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements.
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Ahmed J. Davis, David J. F. Gross

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Timothy J. Haller, Ashley C. Keller

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Melissa A. Anyetei, Darrick J. Hooker

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Jeanne M. Gills ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Speaker(s)
Meredith Martin Addy ~ Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC
Melissa A. Anyetei ~ Mayer Brown LLP
David K. Callahan ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Kara E.F. Cenar ~ Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.
Hon. Edmond E. Chang ~ District Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Michael I. Cohen ~ Senior Patent Counsel, Baxter Healthcare Corporation
Jeffrey N. Costakos ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Ahmed J. Davis ~ Fish & Richardson P.C.
R. David Donoghue ~ Holland & Knight LLP
Herbert H. Finn ~ Greenberg Traurig LLP
David J. F. Gross ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Timothy J. Haller ~ Haller Law PLLC
Julianne M. Hartzell ~ Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
Brent A. Hawkins ~ McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Reginald J. Hill ~ Jenner & Block LLP
Darrick J. Hooker ~ Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Sharon A. Hwang ~ McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
Julia Mano Johnson ~ Winston & Strawn LLP
Shira J. Kapplin ~ Senior Counsel, IP Litigation, AbbVie
Ashley C. Keller ~ Managing Director, Burford Capital
John A. Marlott ~ Jones Day
Laura Beth Miller ~ Brinks Gilson & Lione
Hon. Roy Payne ~ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno ~ Senior United States District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Hon. Sidney I. Schenkier ~ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Paul R. Steadman ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI

Chicago Seminar Location

University of Chicago Gleacher Center, 450 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Chicago, Il 60611. (312) 464-8787.

Hotel Accommodation

Intercontinental Hotel Chicago, 505 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. (312) 944-4100.  A block of rooms has been reserved for this program.  Please call reservations at 1-800-628-2112 and mention the name of the program you are attending. 

General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama: PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

California:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Illinois: All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Iowa:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Kansas:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live programs.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Maine:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Missouri:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Montana:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Nevada:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live seminars can be used to fulfill the requirements for newly admitted attorneys. All credit categories may be earned via transitional live seminars.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars

North Dakota:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Ohio:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania: PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Vermont:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC): PLI’s live seminars can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of points an attorney can earn via live seminars.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live seminars can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit in all Australian jurisdictions. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA): PLI’s live seminars qualify as “Group-Live delivery” credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE): PLI’s live seminars may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as "instructor-led" credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an SHRM professional can earn via instructor-led programs.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live programs.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (CAMS):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill CAMS credit requirements.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill SW CPE credit requirements.

 

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Christopher K. Hu

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Rachel K. Hunnicutt

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
Richard F. Martinelli

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds. However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions? Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness? Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Carolyn H. Blankenship

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer. A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table. Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal. In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed. 
Carol White

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions. For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Panel Leader; Cynthia Lambert Hardman, Margaret E. Ives, Andrew L. Schaeffer

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In addition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Jeffrey T. Zachmann

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. The Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Michael A. Berta, Peter Schwechheimer

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
George E. Badenoch, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
Gene W. Lee, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements. 
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Eric J. Lobenfeld, Panel Leader; Aaron B. Bernstein, Christopher J. Horgan, Katharine Wolanyk

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Michael C. Smith, Daniel Wolfe

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
Aaron B. Bernstein ~ Vice President, IP Litigation & Transactions, Product Groups Counsel, Zebra Technologies Corporation
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Hon. Renée Marie Bumb ~ District Judge, US Dist Ct of NJ
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson ~ Senior United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Delaware
Andrew L. Schaeffer ~ Corporate Counsel & IP Leader - Electronics & Communications Technology, DuPont Legal, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Katharine Wolanyk ~ IP Principal, Burford Capital
Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ DecisionQuest, Inc
Jeffrey T. Zachmann ~ Counsel - Corporate Litigation, IBM Corporation
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI

New York City Seminar Location

PLI New York Center
, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, (2nd floor), entrance on 45th Street, New York, New York 10036. (800) 260-4754.

New York City Hotel Accommodations

Crowne Plaza Times Square Manhattan, 1605 Broadway (at 48th Street), New York, NY 10019 (212) 977-4000. When calling, mention Practising Law Institute. You can also make reservations online to access PLI's rates.

The Muse, 130 West 46th Street, New York, NY 10036. Please call reservations at 1-800-546-7866. When calling, please mention Practising Law Institute and rate code PLII. You can also Book Online- Kimpton.

Millennium Broadway Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036. Please call reservations at 1-800-622-5569. When calling, please mention Practising Law Institute. You can also book online.

Hyatt Times Square, 135 W. 45th Street, New York, NY 10036. For reservations, please call (646) 364-1234. When calling mention rate code CR56218 or Practising Law Institute.

General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama: PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

California:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Illinois: All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Iowa:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Kansas:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live programs.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Maine:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Missouri:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Montana:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Nevada:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live seminars can be used to fulfill the requirements for newly admitted attorneys. All credit categories may be earned via transitional live seminars.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars

North Dakota:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Ohio:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania: PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Vermont:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC): PLI’s live seminars can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of points an attorney can earn via live seminars.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live seminars can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” credit in all Australian jurisdictions. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live seminars.

Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA): PLI’s live seminars qualify as “Group-Live delivery” credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE): PLI’s live seminars may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as "instructor-led" credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an SHRM professional can earn via instructor-led programs.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live seminars qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live programs.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (CAMS):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill CAMS credit requirements.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill SW CPE credit requirements.

 

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Christopher K. Hu

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Rachel K. Hunnicutt

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
Richard F. Martinelli

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds. However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions? Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness? Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Carolyn H. Blankenship

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer. A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table. Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal. In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed. 
Carol White

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions. For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Panel Leader; Cynthia Lambert Hardman, Margaret E. Ives, Andrew L. Schaeffer

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In addition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Jeffrey T. Zachmann

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. The Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Michael A. Berta, Peter Schwechheimer

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
George E. Badenoch, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
Gene W. Lee, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements. 
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Eric J. Lobenfeld, Panel Leader; Aaron B. Bernstein, Christopher J. Horgan, Katharine Wolanyk

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Michael C. Smith, Daniel Wolfe

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
Aaron B. Bernstein ~ Vice President, IP Litigation & Transactions, Product Groups Counsel, Zebra Technologies Corporation
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Hon. Renée Marie Bumb ~ District Judge, US Dist Ct of NJ
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson ~ Senior United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Delaware
Andrew L. Schaeffer ~ Corporate Counsel & IP Leader - Electronics & Communications Technology, DuPont Legal, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Katharine Wolanyk ~ IP Principal, Burford Capital
Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ DecisionQuest, Inc
Jeffrey T. Zachmann ~ Counsel - Corporate Litigation, IBM Corporation
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered. If two or more individuals wish to participate in a webcast and receive credit, PLI would be happy to provide a Groupcast – group viewing of a webcast. To schedule a Groupcast, please contact PLI at groupcasts@pli.edu.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

California:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Kansas:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Montana:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live webcasts can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Ethics credit, professional practice credit, and law practice management credit may be earned via transitional live webcasts. Skills credits may not be earned via live webcasts.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

North Dakota:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Ohio:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live webcasts.

CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s live webcasts can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 points of distance learning programs per reporting period.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live webcasts can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for live webcasts vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “Group-Internet-Based” (GIB) credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as "instructor-led" credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an SHRM professional can earn via instructor-led programs.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live webcasts qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live programs.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (CAMS):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill CAMS credit requirements.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill SW CPE credit requirements.

 

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Christopher K. Hu

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Rachel K. Hunnicutt

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
Richard F. Martinelli

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds. However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions? Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness? Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Carolyn H. Blankenship

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer. A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table. Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal. In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed. 
Carol White

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions. For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Panel Leader; Cynthia Lambert Hardman, Margaret E. Ives, Andrew L. Schaeffer

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In addition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Jeffrey T. Zachmann

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. The Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Michael A. Berta, Peter Schwechheimer

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
George E. Badenoch, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
Gene W. Lee, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements. 
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Eric J. Lobenfeld, Panel Leader; Aaron B. Bernstein, Christopher J. Horgan, Katharine Wolanyk

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Michael C. Smith, Daniel Wolfe

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
Aaron B. Bernstein ~ Vice President, IP Litigation & Transactions, Product Groups Counsel, Zebra Technologies Corporation
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Hon. Renée Marie Bumb ~ District Judge, US Dist Ct of NJ
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson ~ Senior United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Delaware
Andrew L. Schaeffer ~ Corporate Counsel & IP Leader - Electronics & Communications Technology, DuPont Legal, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Katharine Wolanyk ~ IP Principal, Burford Capital
Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ DecisionQuest, Inc
Jeffrey T. Zachmann ~ Counsel - Corporate Litigation, IBM Corporation
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI
Ice Miller LLP, One American Square, Suite 2900, Indianapolis, IN 46282

General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

California:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Iowa:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Kansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live programs.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Maine:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Montana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nevada:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Ethics credit, professional practice credit, and law practice management credit may be earned via transitional live groupcasts. Skills credits may not be earned via live groupcasts.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

North Dakota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Ohio:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of points an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “Group-Live delivery” credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill HR credit requirements.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live groupcasts.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Christopher K. Hu

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Rachel K. Hunnicutt

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
Richard F. Martinelli

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds. However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions? Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness? Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Carolyn H. Blankenship

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer. A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table. Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal. In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed. 
Carol White

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions. For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Panel Leader; Cynthia Lambert Hardman, Margaret E. Ives, Andrew L. Schaeffer

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In addition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Jeffrey T. Zachmann

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. The Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Michael A. Berta, Peter Schwechheimer

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
George E. Badenoch, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
Gene W. Lee, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements. 
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Eric J. Lobenfeld, Panel Leader; Aaron B. Bernstein, Christopher J. Horgan, Katharine Wolanyk

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Michael C. Smith, Daniel Wolfe

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
Aaron B. Bernstein ~ Vice President, IP Litigation & Transactions, Product Groups Counsel, Zebra Technologies Corporation
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Hon. Renée Marie Bumb ~ District Judge, US Dist Ct of NJ
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson ~ Senior United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Delaware
Andrew L. Schaeffer ~ Corporate Counsel & IP Leader - Electronics & Communications Technology, DuPont Legal, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Katharine Wolanyk ~ IP Principal, Burford Capital
Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ DecisionQuest, Inc
Jeffrey T. Zachmann ~ Counsel - Corporate Litigation, IBM Corporation
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI
New Jersey Groupcast Location

New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1520. 732-249-5100.

General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

California:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Iowa:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Kansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live programs.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Maine:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Montana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nevada:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Ethics credit, professional practice credit, and law practice management credit may be earned via transitional live groupcasts. Skills credits may not be earned via live groupcasts.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

North Dakota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Ohio:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of points an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “Group-Live delivery” credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill HR credit requirements.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live groupcasts.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Christopher K. Hu

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Rachel K. Hunnicutt

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
Richard F. Martinelli

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds. However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions? Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness? Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Carolyn H. Blankenship

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer. A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table. Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal. In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed. 
Carol White

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions. For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Panel Leader; Cynthia Lambert Hardman, Margaret E. Ives, Andrew L. Schaeffer

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In addition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Jeffrey T. Zachmann

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. The Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Michael A. Berta, Peter Schwechheimer

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
George E. Badenoch, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
Gene W. Lee, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements. 
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Eric J. Lobenfeld, Panel Leader; Aaron B. Bernstein, Christopher J. Horgan, Katharine Wolanyk

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Michael C. Smith, Daniel Wolfe

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
Aaron B. Bernstein ~ Vice President, IP Litigation & Transactions, Product Groups Counsel, Zebra Technologies Corporation
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Hon. Renée Marie Bumb ~ District Judge, US Dist Ct of NJ
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson ~ Senior United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Delaware
Andrew L. Schaeffer ~ Corporate Counsel & IP Leader - Electronics & Communications Technology, DuPont Legal, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Katharine Wolanyk ~ IP Principal, Burford Capital
Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ DecisionQuest, Inc
Jeffrey T. Zachmann ~ Counsel - Corporate Litigation, IBM Corporation
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI
Cleveland Groupcast Location

The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, 1375 E. 9th Street – Floor 2, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. 216-696-2404.

General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

California:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Iowa:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Kansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live programs.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Maine:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Montana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nevada:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Ethics credit, professional practice credit, and law practice management credit may be earned via transitional live groupcasts. Skills credits may not be earned via live groupcasts.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

North Dakota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Ohio:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of points an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “Group-Live delivery” credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill HR credit requirements.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live groupcasts.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Why You Should Attend
Whether you are plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel, you must be up to date on the current state of the law and able to quickly develop successful litigation strategies and tactics. Outside and in-house lawyers with national reputations in patent litigation will offer guidance on trying and managing bench and jury patent trials, as well as U.S. Patent Office post-grant trial proceedings, and the program as a whole will furnish comprehensive coverage of every phase of these patent matters. U.S. District Court Judges will provide their insights on the conduct and management of patent litigation, in addition to sharing practical tips for litigants.

What You Will Learn
NEW! Watch a demonstration of an effective opening statement in a patent case from the plaintiff and the defendant, including commentary from a jury consultant
• Hear recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies, including current and future impacts of key Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, as well as proposed legislation
• Discover strategies for multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
• Understand advanced strategies and tactics in the complex world of patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
• Explore trends in patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
• Recognize ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media 

Special Features
• Earn one hour of Ethics credit!
• Listen as district Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions!)

Who Should Attend
If you are a patent litigator/lawyer, general business litigator, patent prosecutor, or corporate counsel, attend this comprehensive program and hone your patent litigation skills in just two days!


PLI Group Discounts

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

Cancellations

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.

Day One: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Program Overview
Christopher K. Hu

9:15 Many Changes Afoot—Continued Rise in Supreme Court Patent Decisions and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact
The Supreme Court continues its unprecedented review of and decisions in patent cases from infringement to damages to laches. This session provides not only a broad review of the important decisions of the Supreme Court, including the impact if any from new Supreme Court appointment(s), the effect of recent Supreme Court decisions, and how and if they differ from existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence and whether they clarified or muddied the law. In addition, this session will review key decisions by the Federal Circuit and District Courts over the past year, and the continuing effects of the America Invents Act (AIA) and other proposed patent legislation to address continued concerns about the use of patent litigation as an economic weapon. Key trends and developing patent law doctrines will also be covered, including any anticipated legislative changes or activity in view of the new administration.
Rachel K. Hunnicutt

10:15 New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
In a world that is increasingly connected by networks with services provided by multiple entities, and in which complex products are made up of components from numerous sources (both domestic and abroad), plaintiffs and defendants need new strategies for dealing with issues of infringement based on the acts of multiple parties. This session will cover the constantly evolving law following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Limelight v. Akamai relating to infringement where not all steps are performed or all components supplied by one entity. In addition, issues of extra-territoriality under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1) in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. will be explored.
Richard F. Martinelli

11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?
The recent Alice, Nautilus and Wiliamson decisions gave many cause to believe that patents were becoming more vulnerable on § 101 and § 112 grounds. However, this session will explore whether the tide is changing.  For example, Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft; Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC; McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America) provided the necessary guidance on § 101 and the patentability of business methods or other software-implemented inventions? Similarly, has the Federal Circuit provided more of a roadmap following the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision on the thorny issue of indefiniteness? Even in the § 112, § 6 context, the issue of indefiniteness continues to be explored more in contentious patent litigation following cases such as, Williamson v. Citrix. Lastly, this session will discuss the current state of the law in this area and winning strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants when § 101 and § 112 claims are raised, including whether venue is a factor.
Carolyn H. Blankenship

12:30 Lunch Break

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
Post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office continue to be a strategy for parties against whom a patent has been asserted and the path for initiating and defending such proceedings has become clearer. A parallel Patent Office proceeding is often a basis for seeking a stay of the more costly district court proceeding and/or used to bring the patentee to the bargaining table. Recent statistics reflect the continued popularity of filing of inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings following AIA, though the rates of success are trending downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation, Motions to Amend, requests for rehearing, and remand proceedings following an appeal. In addition, the session will cover also address the effects of any such post-grant proceedings on parallel litigation, including stays, as well as the potential effects on collateral estoppel, claim construction positions, willfulness charges, inequitable conduct claims, and on damages and intervening rights will be addressed. 
Carol White

2:45 The Unwritten Rules: Novel and Creative Strategies and Tactics in Patent Litigation
Patent litigation is an expensive, complex, disruptive and potentially economically fatal undertaking. Even before a patent litigation begins, both potential plaintiffs and defendants must make numerous judgment calls. For plaintiffs, these decisions include the extent of pre-suit (Rule 11) investigations, which defendant or defendants to sue, whether to negotiate with the other side, choice of forum, whether to seek a preliminary injunction, whether to initiate a parallel ITC proceeding, how aggressively to pursue the case, and when to file dispositive motions. For defendants, issues include whether to negotiate, initiate a proceeding in the U.S. Patent Office, or file a declaratory judgment action, and when to file dispositive motions.
Common issues include the number and type of depositions to take (individual, Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees and non-party), the timing of claim construction and the timing of dispositive motions. This session will feature a panel of experienced litigators who will discuss their views on the many judgment calls that must be made where there are no answers in the books.
Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Panel Leader; Cynthia Lambert Hardman, Margaret E. Ives, Andrew L. Schaeffer

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs
Parallel patent infringement actions are often brought at the same time against multiple defendants. In addition, joint defense agreements are frequently entered into for efficiency and consistency in defending the actions. However, there are negatives as well as positives and numerous possible pitfalls in entering into joint defense arrangements. This session will discuss the legal and practical considerations of working efficiently with co-defendants and their counsel, including negotiating joint defense agreements; managing costs and responsibilities among numerous parties where positions may conflict; strategies for when to take the lead and when to ride the wave; and managing related issues of indemnification. In addition, we will explore how such strategies may be implicated by any venue decision by the Supreme Court in the In re Heartland case.
Jeffrey T. Zachmann

5:00 Adjourn

Day Two: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements
Recent Federal Circuit and District Court decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review recent cases on all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions. Cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief will be analyzed. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the discoverability and effect of prior settlement agreements on both damages and injunctive relief. The Lastly, the practical ability to obtain injunctive relief ten years post-eBay and recent cases like Apple v. Samsung will be discussed.
Michael A. Berta, Peter Schwechheimer

10:00 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
Patent litigation has long been recognized as a form of federal civil litigation that is typically more complex and expensive than the ordinary case. On one hand, patent cases have been described as among the best-litigated of all federal cases. On the other hand, patent cases have been characterized as over-litigated, excessively contentious, tedious affairs during which far too many issues are raised at both the trial and appellate levels. District Court Judges present their views of patent litigation, including what’s good, what’s bad and what’s unnecessary. The Judges will discuss such topics as Local Patent Rules and Practice, managing multi-party litigation including scheduling issues, bifurcation, the timing and adequacy of infringement and invalidity contentions, resolving discovery disputes and the timing and number of case dispositive motions.
George E. Badenoch, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

11:00 Networking Break

11:15 Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
The Judges will continue to provide their views regarding patent litigation in district courts, the impact of parallel PTAB proceedings, especially the issue of stays, the high costs of discovery practice, the form and timing of Markman hearings, and the timing and form of effective mediation, court-ordered (or encouraged) settlement conferences and pre-trial practices, including motions in limine and Daubert motions.
Gene W. Lee, Panel Leader; Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. Sue L. Robinson

12:15 Lunch Break

1:15 Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant)
Skilled patent trial lawyers usually start crafting their opening statements well in advance of trial to maximize the opportunity to organize and present a persuasive story, eliminate unpersuasive or confusing arguments, conduct jury research and refine demonstrative exhibits. Even though most patent cases involve complex technical subject matter, numerous documents, and conflicting experts, an effective opening statement can provide a roadmap for the jury to follow and illuminate the key issues.  This session will pit two skilled trial lawyers against one another in a live demonstration of a plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statement in a patent case. A jury consultant will critique and comment on the openings. Because opening statements sometimes refer to contested evidence, a District Judge will preside to resolve objections that can occur during openings. The session will cover the most important elements of an opening statement and common mistakes made or missed opportunities by both plaintiff’s and defense counsel in delivering these statements. 
Gil Calvillo, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel

2:45 Monetizing Patents – The Changing World of Deriving Benefits from Patents and Portfolios
Patents are expensive to obtain and maintain. Frequently, patents and portfolios lie dormant. As companies seek to derive revenue from patents, new types of entities have sprung up to serve both patent holders, and those against whom patents are asserted, including patent assertion entities, NPEs, defensive patent aggregators and litigation financers. This session will provide an overview of these entities and provide insights into their individual unique perspectives on the acquisition and assertion of patents and defending against such assertions.
Eric J. Lobenfeld, Panel Leader; Aaron B. Bernstein, Christopher J. Horgan, Katharine Wolanyk

3:45 Networking Break

4:00 Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media
Jury trials present unique ethical issues. This year’s ethics session will focus on some of these issues, including the limits of jury research in the trial venue, research into Internet usage by potential jurors and the use of social media to learn more about a potential or actual juror. Issues relating to Internet usage by potential or actual jurors to learn more about the litigation, as well as the use of social media to influence public perceptions of parties, the litigation or even lawyers and law firms, will also be covered. The session will include a review of recent case law and ethics opinions, such as the ABA’s 2014 Formal Opinion 466 and the New York County Lawyers’ Association 2011 Formal Opinion No. 743, on the use of social media to conduct research on potential jurors.
Michael C. Smith, Daniel Wolfe

5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
Aaron B. Bernstein ~ Vice President, IP Litigation & Transactions, Product Groups Counsel, Zebra Technologies Corporation
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Hon. Renée Marie Bumb ~ District Judge, US Dist Ct of NJ
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Gene W. Lee ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson ~ Senior United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Delaware
Andrew L. Schaeffer ~ Corporate Counsel & IP Leader - Electronics & Communications Technology, DuPont Legal, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Katharine Wolanyk ~ IP Principal, Burford Capital
Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ DecisionQuest, Inc
Jeffrey T. Zachmann ~ Counsel - Corporate Litigation, IBM Corporation
Program Attorney(s)
Ivo Mijac ~ Senior Program Manager, California, PLI
Atlanta Groupcast Location

Atlanta Bar Association, 400 International Tower, 229 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30303-1601. (404) 521-0781.

General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

California:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Iowa:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Kansas:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live programs.

Kentucky:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Louisiana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Maine:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Minnesota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Mississippi:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Montana:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nebraska:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Nevada:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New Jersey:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Ethics credit, professional practice credit, and law practice management credit may be earned via transitional live groupcasts. Skills credits may not be earned via live groupcasts.

North Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

North Dakota:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Ohio:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

South Carolina:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Tennessee:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live interactive programs.

Washington:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

West Virginia:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

Wyoming:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “real-time” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via real-time programs.

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “interactive” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” credit. There is no limit to the number of points an attorney can earn via live groupcasts.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “Group-Live delivery” credit.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill HR credit requirements.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) qualify as “live” training events. There is no limit to the number of credits a candidate or certification holder can earn via live groupcasts.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Share
Email
“…the high quality of the speakers who were able to provide the audience with numerous insights in their senior practitioner experiences. The choice of the various topics was also excellent, as it has allowed me to collect many practical tips in many different areas.”
2016 Attendee

“Very good presentations.”
Mark C. Guinto, McDonald Hopkins LLC


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.