Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Post-Grant Strategies for Correcting and Challenging Patent Claims
March 4, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time)
1.5 CLE Credits
After a US patent issues, many procedures are available to correct the patent and challenge its validity. The America Invents Act (AIA), passed in 2011, changed the face of post-grant practice at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Inter Partes Review, Covered Business Method, and Post Grant Review procedures defined in the AIA have evolved continuously since their enactment, which has shifted their advantages relative to pre-existing Ex Parte Reexamination and Reissue procedures.
This webinar will provide a summary of post-grant procedures and describe when, why, and how each procedure is useful (or not) to patent owners and third-party challengers.
During the webinar, we will cover these topics and more:
- Review of post-grant procedures at the USPTO including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), Covered Business Method Review (CBM), Supplemental Examination, Ex Parte Reexamination, and Reissue applications
- Strategic purposes of the various post-grant procedures
- Tactics for petitioners and patent owners when multiple procedures are available
Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS: $65
- 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.
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.
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 email@example.com. 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 is a pre-approved CLE provider with the following states:
- New Hampshire
- New Mexico
- New York
AIPLA has applied for CLE accreditation in the following states:
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.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Jim Beam’s Pucker Vodka Trademark Win
June 3, 2020The 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.
Compulife Software Gets Second Chance in Competitor Hacking Case
June 1, 2020The 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.
USPTO Grants Further Relief for Some Patent Fees and Deadlines
May 29, 2020The 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).
USPTO Proposes Rule Changing AIA Trial Rules on Institution and Responsive Briefing
May 28, 2020The 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.
Man Secures Win in ‘Lawn Managers’ Trademark Case Against Ex-Wife
May 27, 2020The 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.