Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

AIPLA CLE Webinar: 2019 Damages Year In Review

February 25, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time)

Credits

1.5 CLE Credits

Registration

Fee: $99.00 and Up

Register Now

Patent damages remains one of the most important, and most contentious, issues in patent litigation.  

This area of law is constantly evolving and it's important to keep up to date regarding the myriad of issues affecting it.  

In that respect, AIPLA is honored to have an expert panel of in-house counsel, outside litigators, and damages experts provide its annual review of patent damages case law.

The panel will discuss important judicial decisions regarding patent damages from 2019, will offer significant insights regarding the judicial decisions and offer advice on how to deal with the issues raised in those decisions if they arise in patent litigation.

Presented by: Pervin Taleyarkhan of Whirlpool Corporation; Felicia Boyd of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP; Chris Schulte of 284 Partners, LLC; and Kristin Cleveland (moderator) of Klarquist.

 

CLE Pricing

 For multiple-attendee sites, all participants must attend at the same location.

 Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS:  $65


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 cle@aipla.org. 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.


CLE INFORMATION 

AIPLA is a pre-approved CLE provider with the following states:

  • Alaska
  • California
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • Vermont

AIPLA has applied for CLE accreditation in the following states:

  • Alabama
  • Florida
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Minnesota
  • Ohio
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Virginia
  • Washington
 
For information on CLE accreditation in all other states, please contact our CLE Department at cle@aipla.org.  CLE credit may be available, but will require additional time for approval and COA delivery.


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:

 

 

News

  • edward-howell-55bQ7g3ZlQU-unsplash web Ninth Circuit Affirms Jim Beam’s Pucker Vodka Trademark Win

    June 3, 2020

    The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2020, affirmed Jim Beam Brand Co’s (Jim Beam) win against a company that accused it of infringing trademarks because the marks in question were dissimilar and customer confusion wasn’t likely.
  • Hacker web Compulife Software Gets Second Chance in Competitor Hacking Case

    June 1, 2020

    The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on May 20, 2020, vacated and remanded a Florida court ruling that found that a group of website operators who hacked into a competitor’s server and database didn’t infringe its source code copyright or misappropriate its proprietary information.
  • Deadline web USPTO Grants Further Relief for Some Patent Fees and Deadlines

    May 29, 2020

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on May 27, 2020, further extended the time to file certain patent-related documents and to pay certain required fees under its temporary authority provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
  • chuttersnap-2cG2-NJ3c4o-unsplash web USPTO Proposes Rule Changing AIA Trial Rules on Institution and Responsive Briefing

    May 28, 2020

    The proposed rule provides that if the Board institutes inter partes review, post-grant review, or transitional program for covered business method patents proceedings, trial will proceed on all challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability.
  • Lawn web Man Secures Win in ‘Lawn Managers’ Trademark Case Against Ex-Wife

    May 27, 2020

    The Eight Circuit on May 20, 2020, awarded a victory in a trademark infringement case to the owner of a Missouri lawn care company against his ex-wife’s lawn care company because her company continued using his mark after their post-divorce licensing agreement expired.