Navigating Section 112 Disclosure Obligations and Withstanding Invalidity Challenges

A live 90-minute CLE webinar/teleconference with interactive Q&A
Sponsored by the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications
Thursday September 8, 2011 ~ 1:00pm-2:30pm EDT
Price: $297

Please note: You will be taken to the Strafford website to complete your order.

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patentees, patent challengers and counsel for dealing with the U.S. Patent Law Section 112′s written description requirement. The panel will also discuss the lessons learned since the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Ariad v. Eli Lilly for compliance and patent challenges.

Description

The written description requirements call for patent applicants to provide extensive detail about what an invention does. As a result, it can work to reduce the scope of patent protection.

Since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2010 decision in Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., there has been more focus on the written description in patent invalidity challenges. The court shed further light on the requirement in Centocor Ortho Biotech v. Abbott Labs.

Patent counsel must pay close attention to recent changes involving the written description requirement to craft a description that will survive patent validity challenges.

Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines the written description requirement and how it has been applied. The panel will discuss the lessons learned from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Ariad v. Lilly, the court treatment since the decision, and offer best practices for meeting the written description requirement and withstanding invalidity challenges.

Outline

• Written description requirement
  1. Purpose and scope
  2. What is required by Section 112
  3. Application of the requirement
• Lesson learned after Ariad v. Lilly
  1. Review of Ariad v. Lilly
  2. Impact of the decision
     1. on patent prosecution
     2. for predictable arts
     3. for non-predictable arts
     4. for the written description
     5. on patent litigation
  3. Treatment by other courts
     1. Centocor Ortho Biotech v. Abbott Labs
• Best practices to meet the written description requirement

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

• How is the Ariad decision being applied by the courts—and what has its impact been on patent prosecutions?
• What are the implications of Ariad for the predictable and non-predictable arts?
• What steps can patentees and counsel take to meet the written description requirement and withstand invalidity challenges based on the written description?

Following the speaker presentations, you’ll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.

Faculty

Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Partner
Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, D.C.
He counsels clients on intellectual property issues, including validity and infringement of intellectual property rights, licensing and contract matters and Hatch-Waxman issues. He has 20 years experience successfully representing multinational companies as lead counsel in trials and appeals of patent cases and Section 337 cases at the International Trade Commission.

Additional faculty to be announced.

Register Today!
Price covers an unlimited number of staff at your office location. Can’t participate in the live seminar? A CD of the full event proceedings, including Q&A and PDF files of all handouts, will be available 10 days after the seminar.

Continuing Legal Education
Continuing Legal Education credits are granted for an additional $65 per person. Please refer to the options on the order page to take advantage of these credits.

Please note: You will be taken to the
Strafford website to complete your order.