Seminar  Program

Patent Litigation 2018: 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.

 

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 

 

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!

 

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!)


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 Opening Remarks

Jeanne M. Gills



9:15 Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence 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 constitutionality of AIA proceedings. This session provides not only a broad review of the key holdings and effect of the Court’s important decisions, but also how and if those decisions 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 AIA proceedings 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 under the current Administration.

Cynthia J. Rigsby



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.

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?

Recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have given more teeth to both Section 101 and Section 112 analyses. The Federal Circuit interpretations of these Sections has indicated an evolvingly complex relationship between 101 and 112 that is, at times complementary and at time cross purposes. Section 101 has been increasingly used to challenge overbroad claims through the use of abstractness and preemption, while Section 112, continues to limit the scope of coverage held by the patentee through adequate disclosure in the specification. The Federal Circuit has noted this relationship in its recent decisions, including Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. The Federal Circuit has also provided additional guidance on Section 101, including recognizing its underlying factual component in e.g., Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades. 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.

Michael G. Babbitt, Meredith Martin Addy



12:30 Lunch

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB

With the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Oil States and SAS, post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office will 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 continue to trend downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation (and real party-in-interest issues), Motions to Amend, subject matter jurisdiction and other procedural issues, claim construction issues, presenting the most persuasive obviousness defenses, requests for rehearing, appellate review of AIA proceedings, and/or remand proceedings following a Federal Circuit appeal. In addition, the session will 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.

Brent A. Hawkins, Sharon A. Hwang



2:45 Choosing the Right Expert and Demonstration of Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses play a critical role in patent litigation with respect to both liability and damages issues.  Such an expert can either be independent or could be one of the party’s employees.  The employee (typically a “non-retained” or “inside” expert) can provide valuable information on the state of the prior art or state of the market and competition, advise on the similarities or differences between the patent claims and the accused products/methods, help keep the company focused on the business issues, and help identify outside experts.  This session will cover the selection and use of testifying and non-testifying experts, the use of experts at Markman hearings, the development of expert opinions, the preparation of expert reports, and the discoverability of certain communications with the expert.  In addition, this session will include a demonstration of the direct and cross-examination of an expert, together with a discussion of the pretrial activities that impact the expert’s testimony including the use of evidentiary motions including Daubert motions and other motions in limine to exclude or limit expert testimony at trial.

Michelle M. Umberger



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.

Neil C. Jones, Eric Rudich



5:00 Adjourn

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

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements

Recent judicial decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, including cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the entire market value rule. The application of Daubert to economic experts and theories used by economists will also be covered.

R. David Donoghue, Julianne M. Hartzell



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, Kara E.F. Cenar, Panel Leaders; Hon. Lynn Adelman, Hon. David Coar (Ret.), Hon. James Holderman (Ret.), Hon. Young B. Kim



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, Kara E.F. Cenar, Panel Leaders; Hon. David Coar (Ret.), Hon. James Holderman (Ret.), Hon. Young B. Kim



12:15 Lunch

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 can sometimes be contentious, a District Judge will offer commentary on what is appropriate in an opening. 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 The Big Picture – Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy

Patent litigation does not occur in a vacuum. For patent owners, it is typically part of a strategy to monetize a patent or patent portfolio or to attempt to exclude a competitor. For accused infringers, the goal is to continue to compete by avoiding an injunction, damages or burdensome royalties. On either side, a carefully thought-out strategy must be in place to maximize the chances of a successful outcome and to minimize risks, litigation disruption and costs. This session will cover the many types of strategic and tactical decisions that should be made before and during litigation. For patent owners, this includes pre-suit Rule 11 investigations, venue selection, whether to file a parallel ITC action, whether to seek an injunction, litigation financing and discovery strategies. For accused infringers, considerations include whether to file a declaratory judgment action, transfer motions in light of TC Heartland, whether to initiate a parallel PTO proceeding, defending against a charge of willful infringement, alternative dispute resolution and the timing of dispositive motions. The unique issues arising in litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) will also be covered. A panel of experienced in-house and outside counsel will discuss these issues and how they fit into a comprehensive business strategy which is ultimately what patent litigation is all about.

Nicole L. Little, Thomas D. Rein



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
Hon. Lynn Adelman ~ District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Melissa A. Anyetei ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Michael G. Babbitt ~ Jenner & Block 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. David H. Coar ~ Mediator/Arbitrator, JAMS
Ahmed J. Davis ~ Fish & Richardson P.C.
R. David Donoghue ~ Holland & Knight LLP
David J. F. Gross ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Julianne M. Hartzell ~ Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
Brent A. Hawkins ~ McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Hon. James F. Holderman (Ret.) ~ Mediator and Arbitrator, JAMS
Darrick J. Hooker ~ Akerman LLP
Sharon A. Hwang ~ McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
Neil C. Jones ~ Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Hon. Young B. Kim ~ Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Nicole L. Little ~ Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery
John A. Marlott ~ Jones Day
Laura Beth Miller ~ Brinks Gilson & Lione
Thomas D. Rein ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Cynthia J. Rigsby ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
Eric Rudich, Ph.D. ~ Blueprint Trial Consulting
Michelle M. Umberger ~ Perkins Coie LLP
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. Please contact the hotel directly for the preferred rate and mention Practising Law Institute or Corporate ID 100312169.  You may also book online at PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE.    Please note that the rate is a corporate and not a group rate. 

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:  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 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:  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 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.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.

Other Credit Types

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

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill CFP 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.

 

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 

 

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!

 

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!)


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 Opening Remarks

Christopher K. Hu



9:15 Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence 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 constitutionality of AIA proceedings. This session provides not only a broad review of the key holdings and effect of the Court’s important decisions, but also how and if those decisions 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 AIA proceedings 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 under the current Administration.

Denise Main



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.

Margaret E. Ives



11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?

Recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have given more teeth to both Section 101 and Section 112 analyses. The Federal Circuit interpretations of these Sections has indicated an evolvingly complex relationship between 101 and 112 that is, at times complementary and at time cross purposes. Section 101 has been increasingly used to challenge overbroad claims through the use of abstractness and preemption, while Section 112, continues to limit the scope of coverage held by the patentee through adequate disclosure in the specification. The Federal Circuit has noted this relationship in its recent decisions, including Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. The Federal Circuit has also provided additional guidance on Section 101, including recognizing its underlying factual component in e.g., Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades. 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.

Richard F. Martinelli



12:30 Lunch

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB

With the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Oil States and SAS, post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office will 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 continue to trend downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation (and real party-in-interest issues), Motions to Amend, subject matter jurisdiction and other procedural issues, claim construction issues, presenting the most persuasive obviousness defenses, requests for rehearing, appellate review of AIA proceedings, and/or remand proceedings following a Federal Circuit appeal. In addition, the session will 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.

Cynthia Lambert Hardman



2:45 Choosing the Right Expert and Demonstration of Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses play a critical role in patent litigation with respect to both liability and damages issues.  Such an expert can either be independent or could be one of the party’s employees.  The employee (typically a “non-retained” or “inside” expert) can provide valuable information on the state of the prior art or state of the market and competition, advise on the similarities or differences between the patent claims and the accused products/methods, help keep the company focused on the business issues, and help identify outside experts.  This session will cover the selection and use of testifying and non-testifying experts, the use of experts at Markman hearings, the development of expert opinions, the preparation of expert reports, and the discoverability of certain communications with the expert.  In addition, this session will include a demonstration of the direct and cross-examination of an expert, together with a discussion of the pretrial activities that impact the expert’s testimony including the use of evidentiary motions including Daubert motions and other motions in limine to exclude or limit expert testimony at trial.

Eric J. Lobenfeld



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.

Rachel K. Hunnicutt



5:00 Adjourn

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

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements

Recent judicial decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, including cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the entire market value rule. The application of Daubert to economic experts and theories used by economists will also be covered.

Christopher K. Hu, 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. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



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.

Martin E. Gilmore, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



12:15 Lunch

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 can sometimes be contentious, a District Judge will offer commentary on what is appropriate in an opening. 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; Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel



2:45 The Big Picture – Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy

Patent litigation does not occur in a vacuum. For patent owners, it is typically part of a strategy to monetize a patent or patent portfolio or to attempt to exclude a competitor. For accused infringers, the goal is to continue to compete by avoiding an injunction, damages or burdensome royalties. On either side, a carefully thought-out strategy must be in place to maximize the chances of a successful outcome and to minimize risks, litigation disruption and costs. This session will cover the many types of strategic and tactical decisions that should be made before and during litigation. For patent owners, this includes pre-suit Rule 11 investigations, venue selection, whether to file a parallel ITC action, whether to seek an injunction, litigation financing and discovery strategies. For accused infringers, considerations include whether to file a declaratory judgment action, transfer motions in light of TC Heartland, whether to initiate a parallel PTO proceeding, defending against a charge of willful infringement, alternative dispute resolution and the timing of dispositive motions. The unique issues arising in litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) will also be covered. A panel of experienced in-house and outside counsel will discuss these issues and how they fit into a comprehensive business strategy which is ultimately what patent litigation is all about.

Michael A. Berta, Eric Damon, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Carol White



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.

Lisa Q. Dane, Michael C. Smith



5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eric Damon ~ Director, IP Licensing, Asia-Pacific, IBM Corporation / IBM Japan
Lisa Q. Dane ~ Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting Inc
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
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart 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
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 ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
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 (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 Corporate Rate ID 786839408. In addition, you can book online at PLI Muse Hotel

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. In addition, you can book online at PLI Millennium Hotel .

 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:  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 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:  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 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.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.

Other Credit Types

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

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s live seminars may fulfill CFP 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.

 

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 

 

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!

 

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!)


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 Opening Remarks

Christopher K. Hu



9:15 Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence 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 constitutionality of AIA proceedings. This session provides not only a broad review of the key holdings and effect of the Court’s important decisions, but also how and if those decisions 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 AIA proceedings 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 under the current Administration.

Denise Main



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.

Margaret E. Ives



11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?

Recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have given more teeth to both Section 101 and Section 112 analyses. The Federal Circuit interpretations of these Sections has indicated an evolvingly complex relationship between 101 and 112 that is, at times complementary and at time cross purposes. Section 101 has been increasingly used to challenge overbroad claims through the use of abstractness and preemption, while Section 112, continues to limit the scope of coverage held by the patentee through adequate disclosure in the specification. The Federal Circuit has noted this relationship in its recent decisions, including Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. The Federal Circuit has also provided additional guidance on Section 101, including recognizing its underlying factual component in e.g., Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades. 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.

Richard F. Martinelli



12:30 Lunch

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB

With the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Oil States and SAS, post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office will 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 continue to trend downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation (and real party-in-interest issues), Motions to Amend, subject matter jurisdiction and other procedural issues, claim construction issues, presenting the most persuasive obviousness defenses, requests for rehearing, appellate review of AIA proceedings, and/or remand proceedings following a Federal Circuit appeal. In addition, the session will 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.

Cynthia Lambert Hardman



2:45 Choosing the Right Expert and Demonstration of Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses play a critical role in patent litigation with respect to both liability and damages issues.  Such an expert can either be independent or could be one of the party’s employees.  The employee (typically a “non-retained” or “inside” expert) can provide valuable information on the state of the prior art or state of the market and competition, advise on the similarities or differences between the patent claims and the accused products/methods, help keep the company focused on the business issues, and help identify outside experts.  This session will cover the selection and use of testifying and non-testifying experts, the use of experts at Markman hearings, the development of expert opinions, the preparation of expert reports, and the discoverability of certain communications with the expert.  In addition, this session will include a demonstration of the direct and cross-examination of an expert, together with a discussion of the pretrial activities that impact the expert’s testimony including the use of evidentiary motions including Daubert motions and other motions in limine to exclude or limit expert testimony at trial.

Eric J. Lobenfeld



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.

Rachel K. Hunnicutt



5:00 Adjourn

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

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements

Recent judicial decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, including cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the entire market value rule. The application of Daubert to economic experts and theories used by economists will also be covered.

Christopher K. Hu, 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. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



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.

Martin E. Gilmore, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



12:15 Lunch

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 can sometimes be contentious, a District Judge will offer commentary on what is appropriate in an opening. 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; Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel



2:45 The Big Picture – Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy

Patent litigation does not occur in a vacuum. For patent owners, it is typically part of a strategy to monetize a patent or patent portfolio or to attempt to exclude a competitor. For accused infringers, the goal is to continue to compete by avoiding an injunction, damages or burdensome royalties. On either side, a carefully thought-out strategy must be in place to maximize the chances of a successful outcome and to minimize risks, litigation disruption and costs. This session will cover the many types of strategic and tactical decisions that should be made before and during litigation. For patent owners, this includes pre-suit Rule 11 investigations, venue selection, whether to file a parallel ITC action, whether to seek an injunction, litigation financing and discovery strategies. For accused infringers, considerations include whether to file a declaratory judgment action, transfer motions in light of TC Heartland, whether to initiate a parallel PTO proceeding, defending against a charge of willful infringement, alternative dispute resolution and the timing of dispositive motions. The unique issues arising in litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) will also be covered. A panel of experienced in-house and outside counsel will discuss these issues and how they fit into a comprehensive business strategy which is ultimately what patent litigation is all about.

Michael A. Berta, Eric Damon, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Carol White



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.

Lisa Q. Dane, Michael C. Smith



5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eric Damon ~ Director, IP Licensing, Asia-Pacific, IBM Corporation / IBM Japan
Lisa Q. Dane ~ Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting Inc
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
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart 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
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 ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
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:  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 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:  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 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.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.

Other Credit Types

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

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s live webcasts may fulfill CFP 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.

 

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 

 

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!

 

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!)


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 Opening Remarks

Christopher K. Hu



9:15 Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence 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 constitutionality of AIA proceedings. This session provides not only a broad review of the key holdings and effect of the Court’s important decisions, but also how and if those decisions 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 AIA proceedings 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 under the current Administration.

Denise Main



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.

Margaret E. Ives



11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?

Recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have given more teeth to both Section 101 and Section 112 analyses. The Federal Circuit interpretations of these Sections has indicated an evolvingly complex relationship between 101 and 112 that is, at times complementary and at time cross purposes. Section 101 has been increasingly used to challenge overbroad claims through the use of abstractness and preemption, while Section 112, continues to limit the scope of coverage held by the patentee through adequate disclosure in the specification. The Federal Circuit has noted this relationship in its recent decisions, including Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. The Federal Circuit has also provided additional guidance on Section 101, including recognizing its underlying factual component in e.g., Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades. 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.

Richard F. Martinelli



12:30 Lunch

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB

With the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Oil States and SAS, post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office will 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 continue to trend downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation (and real party-in-interest issues), Motions to Amend, subject matter jurisdiction and other procedural issues, claim construction issues, presenting the most persuasive obviousness defenses, requests for rehearing, appellate review of AIA proceedings, and/or remand proceedings following a Federal Circuit appeal. In addition, the session will 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.

Cynthia Lambert Hardman



2:45 Choosing the Right Expert and Demonstration of Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses play a critical role in patent litigation with respect to both liability and damages issues.  Such an expert can either be independent or could be one of the party’s employees.  The employee (typically a “non-retained” or “inside” expert) can provide valuable information on the state of the prior art or state of the market and competition, advise on the similarities or differences between the patent claims and the accused products/methods, help keep the company focused on the business issues, and help identify outside experts.  This session will cover the selection and use of testifying and non-testifying experts, the use of experts at Markman hearings, the development of expert opinions, the preparation of expert reports, and the discoverability of certain communications with the expert.  In addition, this session will include a demonstration of the direct and cross-examination of an expert, together with a discussion of the pretrial activities that impact the expert’s testimony including the use of evidentiary motions including Daubert motions and other motions in limine to exclude or limit expert testimony at trial.

Eric J. Lobenfeld



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.

Rachel K. Hunnicutt



5:00 Adjourn

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

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements

Recent judicial decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, including cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the entire market value rule. The application of Daubert to economic experts and theories used by economists will also be covered.

Christopher K. Hu, 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. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



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.

Martin E. Gilmore, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



12:15 Lunch

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 can sometimes be contentious, a District Judge will offer commentary on what is appropriate in an opening. 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; Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel



2:45 The Big Picture – Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy

Patent litigation does not occur in a vacuum. For patent owners, it is typically part of a strategy to monetize a patent or patent portfolio or to attempt to exclude a competitor. For accused infringers, the goal is to continue to compete by avoiding an injunction, damages or burdensome royalties. On either side, a carefully thought-out strategy must be in place to maximize the chances of a successful outcome and to minimize risks, litigation disruption and costs. This session will cover the many types of strategic and tactical decisions that should be made before and during litigation. For patent owners, this includes pre-suit Rule 11 investigations, venue selection, whether to file a parallel ITC action, whether to seek an injunction, litigation financing and discovery strategies. For accused infringers, considerations include whether to file a declaratory judgment action, transfer motions in light of TC Heartland, whether to initiate a parallel PTO proceeding, defending against a charge of willful infringement, alternative dispute resolution and the timing of dispositive motions. The unique issues arising in litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) will also be covered. A panel of experienced in-house and outside counsel will discuss these issues and how they fit into a comprehensive business strategy which is ultimately what patent litigation is all about.

Michael A. Berta, Eric Damon, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Carol White



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.

Lisa Q. Dane, Michael C. Smith



5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eric Damon ~ Director, IP Licensing, Asia-Pacific, IBM Corporation / IBM Japan
Lisa Q. Dane ~ Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting Inc
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
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart 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
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 ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
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:  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 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:  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 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.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for live groupcasts vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill CLPD credit 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 the “Group-Live” 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 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 plicredits@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 plicredits@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.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) 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 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.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (CAMS):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill CAMS credit requirements.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill SW CPE credit requirements.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill CFP 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.

 

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 

 

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!

 

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!)


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 Opening Remarks

Christopher K. Hu



9:15 Supreme Court’s Continuing Influence over Patent Jurisprudence 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 constitutionality of AIA proceedings. This session provides not only a broad review of the key holdings and effect of the Court’s important decisions, but also how and if those decisions 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 AIA proceedings 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 under the current Administration.

Denise Main



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.

Margaret E. Ives



11:15 Networking Break

11:30 Is the Tide Changing Again on the Viability of 101 and 112 as Defenses in Patent Litigation?

Recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have given more teeth to both Section 101 and Section 112 analyses. The Federal Circuit interpretations of these Sections has indicated an evolvingly complex relationship between 101 and 112 that is, at times complementary and at time cross purposes. Section 101 has been increasingly used to challenge overbroad claims through the use of abstractness and preemption, while Section 112, continues to limit the scope of coverage held by the patentee through adequate disclosure in the specification. The Federal Circuit has noted this relationship in its recent decisions, including Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. The Federal Circuit has also provided additional guidance on Section 101, including recognizing its underlying factual component in e.g., Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades. 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.

Richard F. Martinelli



12:30 Lunch

1:45 Strategies for Litigating Patents Concurrently in the District Court and PTAB

With the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Oil States and SAS, post-grant proceedings in the U.S. Patent Office will 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 continue to trend downward. This session will explore best practices on complex issues such as content of Patent Owner Responses, joinder and consolidation (and real party-in-interest issues), Motions to Amend, subject matter jurisdiction and other procedural issues, claim construction issues, presenting the most persuasive obviousness defenses, requests for rehearing, appellate review of AIA proceedings, and/or remand proceedings following a Federal Circuit appeal. In addition, the session will 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.

Cynthia Lambert Hardman



2:45 Choosing the Right Expert and Demonstration of Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses play a critical role in patent litigation with respect to both liability and damages issues.  Such an expert can either be independent or could be one of the party’s employees.  The employee (typically a “non-retained” or “inside” expert) can provide valuable information on the state of the prior art or state of the market and competition, advise on the similarities or differences between the patent claims and the accused products/methods, help keep the company focused on the business issues, and help identify outside experts.  This session will cover the selection and use of testifying and non-testifying experts, the use of experts at Markman hearings, the development of expert opinions, the preparation of expert reports, and the discoverability of certain communications with the expert.  In addition, this session will include a demonstration of the direct and cross-examination of an expert, together with a discussion of the pretrial activities that impact the expert’s testimony including the use of evidentiary motions including Daubert motions and other motions in limine to exclude or limit expert testimony at trial.

Eric J. Lobenfeld



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.

Rachel K. Hunnicutt



5:00 Adjourn

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

9:00 Patent Remedies – Damages, Injunctions and Settlement Agreements

Recent judicial decisions reflect a trend towards damages awards based less on application of rules than on evidence of actual harm sustained. This session will review all forms of remedies in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, including cases on lost profits, reasonable royalty, attorneys’ fees and other monetary damages and relief. The special issues arising in cases involving standards patents will also be covered, as well as issues relating to the entire market value rule. The application of Daubert to economic experts and theories used by economists will also be covered.

Christopher K. Hu, 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. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



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.

Martin E. Gilmore, Panel Leader; Hon. Rubén Castillo, Hon. K. Nicole Mitchell, Hon. Sue L. Robinson (Ret.)



12:15 Lunch

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 can sometimes be contentious, a District Judge will offer commentary on what is appropriate in an opening. 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; Candice C. Decaire, Keith R. Hummel



2:45 The Big Picture – Patent Litigation as Part of a Business Strategy

Patent litigation does not occur in a vacuum. For patent owners, it is typically part of a strategy to monetize a patent or patent portfolio or to attempt to exclude a competitor. For accused infringers, the goal is to continue to compete by avoiding an injunction, damages or burdensome royalties. On either side, a carefully thought-out strategy must be in place to maximize the chances of a successful outcome and to minimize risks, litigation disruption and costs. This session will cover the many types of strategic and tactical decisions that should be made before and during litigation. For patent owners, this includes pre-suit Rule 11 investigations, venue selection, whether to file a parallel ITC action, whether to seek an injunction, litigation financing and discovery strategies. For accused infringers, considerations include whether to file a declaratory judgment action, transfer motions in light of TC Heartland, whether to initiate a parallel PTO proceeding, defending against a charge of willful infringement, alternative dispute resolution and the timing of dispositive motions. The unique issues arising in litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) will also be covered. A panel of experienced in-house and outside counsel will discuss these issues and how they fit into a comprehensive business strategy which is ultimately what patent litigation is all about.

Michael A. Berta, Eric Damon, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., Carol White



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.

Lisa Q. Dane, Michael C. Smith



5:00 Adjourn

Chairperson(s)
Christopher K. Hu ~ Blank Rome LLP
Speaker(s)
George E. Badenoch ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Michael A. Berta ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Gil Calvillo, Ph.D. ~ Owner & President, Calvillo & Associates
Hon. Rubén Castillo ~ Chief Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eric Damon ~ Director, IP Licensing, Asia-Pacific, IBM Corporation / IBM Japan
Lisa Q. Dane ~ Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting Inc
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
Margaret E. Ives ~ Choate Hall & Stewart 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
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 ~ Vice President, Analysis Group, Inc.
Michael C. Smith ~ Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
Carol White ~ Intellectual Property Counsel, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
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:  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 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:  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 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.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for live groupcasts vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill CLPD credit 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 the “Group-Live” 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 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 plicredits@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 plicredits@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.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) 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 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.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (CAMS):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill CAMS credit requirements.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill SW CPE credit requirements.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s live groupcasts (i.e. live webcasts available for group viewing at co-sponsored locations) may fulfill CFP credit requirements.

 

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 © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.