On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Patent Litigation 2018: Advanced Techniques & Best Practices

Released on: Nov. 23, 2018
Running Time: 12:42:41

CLICK HERE FOR OPENING STATEMENT FACT SHEET

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.

Topics Include

  • 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 navigating the complex world of patents, including patent monetization and litigation finance, 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 
Lecture Topics [Total time 12:42:41]

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

  • Opening Remarks* [00:02:23]
    Christopher K. Hu
  • Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence and Other Recent Case Developments and Their Impact [01:07:51]
    Denise Main, Ph.D.
  • New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties [00:59:48]
    Margaret E. Ives
  • Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation? [01:01:02]
    Richard F. Martinelli
  • Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB [01:00:54]
    Cynthia Lambert Hardman
  • Choosing the Right Expert and Demonstration of Expert Testimony [00:58:10]
    Eric J. Lobenfeld, Anna Kurian Shaw, Michael K. Milani
  • Making Joint Defense and Indemnity Arrangements Benefit Rather than Hinder Patent Litigation Resolution and Costs [01:00:14]
    Rachel K. Hunnicutt
  • Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements [00:59:50]
    Christopher K. Hu, Peter Schwechheimer
  • Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1 [01:02:01]
    George E. Badenoch, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)
  • Patent Litigation – How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2 [01:00:36]
    Martin E. Gilmore, Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)
  • Live Demonstration: Delivering an Effective Opening Statement in Patent Cases (Plaintiff v. Defendant) [01:30:58]
    Gil Calvillo, Ph.D., Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel
  • The Big Picture – Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy [00:58:56]
    Michael A. Berta, Eric Damon, Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
  • Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research Including Use of Social Media [00:59:58]
    Michael C. Smith, Suann M. Ingle

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

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence and Other Recent Case Developments (August 15, 2018)
    Denise Main
  • Multi-Party Patent Infringement: Recent Developments in the Law of Joint Infringement, Inducement, Contributory Infringement (July 16, 2018)
    Laura Beth Miller, John A. Marlott
  • The Expanding Scope of Multi-Party Infringement
    Margaret E. Ives
  • Recent Developments in 101 and 112 Law
    Richard F. Martinelli
  • Sharon A. Hwang, Amber Carpenter and Brent A. Hawkins, Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB
    Brent A. Hawkins, Sharon A. Hwang
  • Parallel Proceedings in District Court and at the PTAB: Practical Consequences (July 30, 2018)
    Cynthia Lambert Hardman
  • Dealing with Experts in Patent Litigation (2018)
    Eric J. Lobenfeld
  • Implications of the TC Heartland Decision on Jury Verdicts
    Eric A. Rudich
  • Eric A. Rudich, Lewis M. Koppel and Michael P. Padden, Post-Uniloc Reasonable Royalty Damages: What to Do Now and How to Present It to the Jury? Landslide®, July/August 2014, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 42-47
    Eric . Rudich
  • Litigation Strategies That Win or Lose Patent Jury Trials, Landslide®, January/February 2011, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 20-23
    Eric A. Rudich
  • What to Know About Joint Defense Agreements
    Rachel K. Hunnicutt
  • Peter Schwechheimer, Gerard Haddad, Megan R. Wood and Christopher K. Hu, A Brief History of Patent Damages and Where We Are Now
    Peter Schwechheimer, Christopher K. Hu
  • Patent Litigation—How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 1
    Jeanne M. Gills
  • Patent Litigation—How Judges See and Handle Patent Cases, Part 2
    Jeanne M. Gills
  • David J.F. Gross, Helen Chacon and Nicholas P. Chan, Ten Guidelines for Developing a Motion in Limine Strategy for Patent Trials (July 16, 2018)
    David J.F. Gross
  • Nicole L. Little, Bryan Mulder and Thomas D. Rein, Preparing for Offensive Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy (August 8, 2018)
    Nicole L. Little, Thomas D. Rein
  • The Big Picture: Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy
    Michael A. Berta, Charles J. Monterio, Eric Damon, Carol White
  • Ethical Issues Involving Social Media in Jury Cases
    Suann M. Ingle, Michael C. Smith
  • The Ethics of Social Media and the Jury (PowerPoint slides)
    Michael C. Smith, Suann M. Ingle

Presentation Material

  • Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence and Other Recent Case Developments
    Denise Main, Ph.D.
  • New Strategies for Asserting and Defending Against Infringement Claims Involving Acts of Multiple Parties
    Margaret E. Ives
  • Recent Developments in 101 and 112 Law
    Richard F. Martinelli
  • Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the PTAB and District Court
    Cynthia Lambert Hardman
  • Dealing With Experts in Patent Litigation 2018
    Anna Kurian Shaw, Eric J. Lobenfeld
  • Mock Testimony - Case Overview
    Anna Kurian Shaw, Eric J. Lobenfeld, Michael K. Milani
  • Mock Testimony – Direct Demonstratives
    Eric J. Lobenfeld, Michael K. Milani
  • Mock Testimony – Cross Demonstratives
    Anna Kurian Shaw, Michael K. Milani
  • Joint Defense Agreements in Patent Litigation
    Rachel K. Hunnicutt
  • Patent Remedies: Damages, Injunctions, and Settlement Agreements
    Christopher K. Hu, Peter Schwechheimer
  • Mock Opening Statement - Plaintiff
    Candice C. Decaire
  • Mock Opening Statement - Defendant
    Keith R. Hummel
  • The Big Picture: Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy
    Michael A. Berta, Eric Damon, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Carol White
  • The Ethics of Social Media and the Jury
    Suann M. Ingle, Michael C. Smith
Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eric Damon ~ Senior Counsel, IBM Cybersecurity Legal, IBM Corporation
Candice C. Decaire ~ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Martin E. Gilmore ~ Perkins Coie LLP
Cynthia Lambert Hardman ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
Keith R. Hummel ~ Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
Rachel K. Hunnicutt ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Suann M. Ingle ~ Founder and Trial Consultant, Suann Ingle Associates, LLC
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Anna Kurian Shaw ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Eric J. Lobenfeld ~ Hogan Lovells US LLP
Denise Main, Ph.D. ~ Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Richard F. Martinelli ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Michael K. Milani ~ Managing Director, Ocean Tomo
Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell ~ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Charles J. Monterio, Jr. ~ Blank Rome LLP
Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.) ~ Former Senior United States District Court Judge, District of Delaware, Farnan Law LLP
Peter Schwechheimer ~ Economic Consultant and Damages Expert,
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Forrest, Burg & Smith, LLP
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.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

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 on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

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 on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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 on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

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

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

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

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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 on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

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 on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

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

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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 on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

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

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

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

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs 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 on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email
"Overall the program was fantastic. It provided me with an excellent overview of current "hot" issues in patent ligation..."
Luiz Miranda, University of Miami School of Law Graduate and Patent Attorney


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.