|
A live 90-minute CLE webinar/teleconference with interactive Q&A
Sponsored by the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications
Thursday, October 29, 2009 ~ 1:00pm-2:30pm EDT
Price: $297
 |
Please note: You will be taken to the Strafford website to complete your order. |
This seminar will examine subject matter patentability since the Federal Circuit Court’s ruling in Bilski, how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will handle patentability matters pending the Supreme Court’s review of Bilski, and offer best practices for patent seekers.
Description
The Federal Circuit’s 2008 In re Bilski ruling effectively erased 10 years of patentable subject matter jurisprudence. Since then, the state of the law concerning subject matter eligibility has been in flux, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos expected spring 2010.
In response to patent seekers’ uncertainty, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility in August.
As patent applicants and counsel await the Supreme Court’s final ruling, they must understand the current PTO standards for determining whether the subject matter of an application is patentable.
Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines subject matter patentability and the PTO’s interim instructions. The panel will also provide an update on the Bilski case and offer strategies for patent applicants and practitioners in the uncertain environment.
Outline
- Landscape/Overview
- Fallout since the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Bilski
- In re Bilski update
- PTO Interim Guidance
- Criteria for determining subject matter eligibility
- Eligible machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter
- Processes (methods)
- Interim examining procedure for subject matter eligibility determinations
- Best practices for applicants and practitioners
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key questions:
- What criteria are required for subject matter eligibility under the PTO interim instructions?
- How has the Bilski case impacted patent eligibility? What is the impact on past patent eligibility decisions?
- What strategies should patent applicants employ to improve the likelihood of a successful patent application?
Following the speaker presentations, you’ll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.
Faculty
Thomas J. Scott, Jr., Partner
Goodwin Procter, Washington, D.C.
He chairs the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and focuses on all aspects of intellectual property including patent prosecution, litigation and licensing, appellate practice and technology licensing.
Erika H. Arner,
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Reston, Va.
She practices patent prosecution management, client counseling, and litigation and helps clients establish and grow patent portfolios, design and implement procedures to protect intellectual capital, and formulate company-wide IP strategies and policies. She co-authored a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bilski v. Doll and co-authored an amicus curiae brief to the federal circuit in In re Bilski.
Mark T. Garrett, Partner
Fulbright & Jaworski, Austin, Texas
His practice focus is in the area of patent law-both litigation and transactional. He has extensive patent litigation experience that extends from pre-filing investigations through trial. He has extensive experience litigating and prosecuting a wide variety of technologies, from telecommunications equipment and software to medical robotics.
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.
| 
