AttorneysEd Center

In its Kirtsaeng decision, the Supreme Court extended the First Sale Doctrine to copyrighted works sold abroad. Anthony F LoCicero of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein discusses the implications of this case, not only for copyrighted works, but also for its potential implications to trademark and patent law.

Michael Kasdan provides an overview of Section 337 Actions before the ITC, including initiating actions with the ITC complaint, discovery, motion practice and summary determination motions, the role of OUII /staff counsel and remedies and resolution. In addition, the program focuses on key recent developments in ITC jurisprudence, including the satisfaction of the domestic industry requirement by non-practicing entities and the availability of exclusion orders on essential patents for which FRAND commitments have been made.

Commencing patent infringement suits against an alleged infringer in more than one jurisdiction may provide a patentee with major strategic advantages. However, a successful global patent litigation campaign requires complex strategic planning that takes into account the differences between key jurisdictions in timing, procedure and substantive patent law. Anthony Lo Cicero of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP analyzes and explains these strategic issues and provides global patent litigation case studies.

In October of 2012, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rule-making proposing to replace the current USPTO ethics rules, which are based on the ABA Model Code, with a version of the ABA Model Rules. Join Michael Kasdan for a discussion of the differences between the newly proposed rules and the present regime as well as other ethical issues pertaining to practice before the USPTO.

Join Dan Foster and Leigh Martinson, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, as they explain and discuss the America Invents Act's newly-established procedures (which became effective September 16, 2012) for Inter Partes Review. These procedures provide alternatives to litigation to challenge the validity of a patent issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).

The question of what subject matter is eligible to be protected by a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and what subject matter is an unpatentable law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea has been brought to the forefront in a number of recent cases. The Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo Collborative Servs. v. Promethueus Labs., Inc. (Mayo) relates to whether certain medical diagnostic methods are patent-eligible or unpatentable “laws of nature.” The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO and Myriad Genetics (Myriad) (August 16, 2012), remanded for reconsideration by the Supreme Court after Mayo, addresses the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and related diagnostic methods. Join Michael J. Kasdan of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, as he discusses the impact of Mayo and Myriad in determining what pharmaceutical and biotechnology products and methods may be patented. And because Mayo and Myriad are also part of

The Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and the Second Circuit over the past year have issued major decisions in the fields of induced infringement (Akamai-McKesson); the patentability of medical diagnostics (Mayo Collaborative Services) and isolated DNA (Myriad Genetics); and the ability to protect color in the fashion world (Louboutin). In this term, the Supreme Court may hear cases involving pay-for delay settlements in ANDA litigation (Merck K-Pur) and others. Anthony Lo Cicero of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP discusses these cases and their potential implications, in this edition of the Celesq®-West LegalEdcenter IP Master Series.

This term the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit under its en banc authority have had before them cases involving fundamental issues in intellectual property law, including the patentability of diagnostic processes, the standard for proving inequitable conduct and the applicability of intervening rights to reexamination proceedings. Anthony Lo Cicero of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP discusses the cases of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, et al., Therasence, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., and Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., and the likely impact of each on IP practitioners and companies. NOTE: This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit.

Especially with the increase in litigation involving computer implemented inventions, the issues of whether each infringing step or claim element must be performed by a single actor and who is responsible for “use” of an invention are becoming more relevant and important in patent infringement cases. The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in the Akamai and McKesson cases should provide much needed guidance to intellectual property practitioners, companies and judges. Join Anthony F. Lo Cicero of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP as he discusses the decision and its potential impact. NOTE: This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.0 credit hours, of which 0 credit hours will apply to legal ethics/professional responsibility credit.

Join Dan Foster and Leigh Martinson as they discuss the new Model E-Discovery Rules issued by the District Court in the Eastern District of Texas (formally known as [Model] Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases). Our presenters describe how the rules may affect litigation strategy from both an offensive and defensive perspective.