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
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
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
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
-
USPTO Released Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines
October 14, 2020
On October 9, The USPTO published a notice seeking public input on proposed guidelines regarding continuing legal education (CLE). As we noted in an earlier notice, the final rule published on August 3, 2020, will require beginning March 1, 2022, that registered patent practitioners and individuals granted limited recognition to practice before the USPTO in patent matters, biennially submit a mandatory registration statement. -
Supreme Court Will Decide If PTAB Violates Appointments Clause
October 13, 2020
On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as created by the AIA, violates the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution. The Court granted certiorari in three consolidated cases (United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. 19-1434; Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., 19-1452; and Arthrex, Inc., v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., 19-1458), but limited its review to two specific questions -
USPTO fee changes effective October 2, 2020
September 22, 2020
The USPTO published a Final Rule on August 3, 2020 in a Federal Register Notice, announcing fee changes that take effect October 2, 2020. The Final Rule includes an approximate 5-10% increase to most fees impacted by the rule, with some larger increases, notably in issue and maintenance fees, maintenance late fees, and PTAB fees. Four fees were discontinued. -
Shira Perlmutter Is Named Register of Copyrights
September 22, 2020
AIPLA congratulates Shira Perlmutter on her appointment as the 14th Register of Copyrights. Her extensive experience in intellectual property law will be a tremendous benefit to the Office. -
Employees’ Access to Files Thwarts Claim Under Anti-Hacking Law
September 11, 2020
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 9, 2020, held that two former Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Service Inc. employees didn’t violate the anti-hacking Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by forwarding and misusing confidential company information because they had permission to access it.