Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

AIPLA CLE Ethics Webinar: Patent Litigation: The Inequitable Conduct Defense in the Post-Therasense World

August 14, 2019 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Daylight Time)


1.5 CLE Ethics Credits


Fee: $95.00 and Up

Register Now

The Federal Circuit meaningfully altered the inequitable conduct defense to patent infringement claims in its 2011 Therasense decision. Just when you might have thought you have a handle on how to approach an AI inventive matter, along comes a group of people that file on a patent application on behalf of an AI. This Ethics lecture is about an AI invention that creates a new use of the product for the company. Who owns it? Did the owner of the company create an ethics situation when he declares he is the inventor? Is he right or has he caused a taint on the patent?  Join us for an Ethics session that hopefully will make you think about ramifications for the practice of creating an AI application and will discuss both how the defense has fared in patent litigation actions following the Therasense decision and how accused infringers, and courts, are applying it in patent litigation actions today. 


Presented by: Jeff Dyess of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP; Ray Freiwirth of RF IP Law, PLLC


AIPLA Member Rate

General/Non-Member Rate

Single Site (1 Attendee)



2-10 Attendees per Site
All attendees must participate at the same location.



11-20 Attendees per Site
All attendees must participate at the same location.



21+ Attendees per Site
All attendees must participate at the same location.




Registration includes:

  • For multiple-attendee sites, all participants must attend at the same location.
  • CLE certification/processing for applicable states.  Reference CLE Information below for complete details.  
  • Webinar materials, including complete CLE processing information, accessible 24-48 hours before webinar date.

Cancellation Policy:

To get full refund, registrant must request refund five (5) days prior to live event. If less than five (5) days, registrant is transferred to product.

System requirements: 

Webinar access is compatible with any Windows 7 or later computer, Android OS devices, or Apple/iOS devices.  Check system compatibility here.

Accessibility for hearing impaired:

AIPLA’s webinars are available and accessible to individuals who are hearing impaired. If anyone at your location would like to know more about accommodations, please contact We ask that you let us know at least 7 business days out from the webinar, to ensure that we can identify and deploy the solution that best fits our registrants needs.


AIPLA has sought CLE accredidation* in the following states for credit(s): 

*CLE accredidations updated upon receipt.










New Jersey






New Mexico

Rhode Island

West Virginia




New York

South Carolina





North Carolina






North Dakota







Utah (self-study)





CLE Restrictions: 

ATTENTION attorneys in Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah
These states mandate attorneys can only view a webinar independently at their own computer to receive CLE credit.  Multiple attendees prohibited.

ATTENTION attorneys in Arizona

Arizona does not certify courses or providers. Arizona lawyers are required to independently review AZ's regulations and make their own determination that it qualifies for credit towards their MCLE requirements. MCLE Regulation 104(A) identifies the standards to apply.  AIPLA will email an attendance affidavit to registrants requesting AZ CLE credit after the webinar.

ATTENTION attorneys in New Hampshire

New Hampshire attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance according to NH Supreme Court Rule 53.  The New Hampshire Minimum Continuing Legal Education (NHMCLE) Board does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the NH Minimum CLE requirement.  AIPLA will email an attendance affidavit to registrants requesting NH CLE credit after the webinar.   

 Disclaimer:  AIPLA is a nonprofit national bar association.  The sole purpose of this CLE program is to provide educational and informational content.  AIPLA does not provide legal services or advice.  The opinions, views and other statements expressed by contributors to this CLE program are solely those of the contributors.  These opinions, views and statements of the contributors do not necessarily represent those of AIPLA and should not be construed as such.

Add to:




  • Double Dare Viacom ‘Double Dare’ Trademark Declaration Will Have to Wait

    August 22, 2019

    The US District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Viacom’s request for declaration of its “Double Dare” trademark was too premature to be heard, as the alleged harm from Armstrong Interactive’s trademark registration applications was too speculative.
  • PC Toolbar Courts Must Settle Claims Construction Dispute Pre-Dismissal

    August 20, 2019

    The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 16, 2019, held that the District Court for the Northern District of California erred when it dismissed a patent infringement case based on patent ineligibility without first settling a claim construction dispute.
  • Dog Invalidity Finding Affirmed for Dog Gene Patent

    August 16, 2019

    The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 9, 2019, held that the University of Bern, a Swiss university, could not claim sovereign immunity to stop a challenge to its patent related to the detection of a mutation in dog DNA.
  • Lawnmower Lawnmower Steering Patent Invalidation Reversed by Federal Circuit

    August 15, 2019

    The Federal Circuit on August 12, 2019, reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of patent claims covering a lawnmower steering mechanism, holding that the Board’s decision was “predicated on its incorrect claim construction” of the term “mechanical control assembly.”
  • Networking Federal Circuit Rules for AT&T in Networking Patent Dispute

    August 13, 2019

    The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 12, 2019, affirmed a lower court’s ruling that AT&T Mobility LLC and Ericsson Inc. didn’t infringe Iridescent Networks Inc.’s networking patent.