Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
AIPLA CLE Webinar: Comparison of Patent Prosecution Practices at the USPTO and the EPO
April 30, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Daylight Time)
1.5 CLE Credits
There are many differences between patent prosecution practice before the USPTO and patent prosecution practice before the EPO.
In many situations, these differences are significant and impact the patent application drafting process. Furthermore, these differences are often dynamic and vary not just between the drafting processes in each of the jurisdictions, but also within each jurisdiction!
Some of these differences are rooted in ever-changing patent law; others are rooted in each jurisdiction’s idiosyncrasies. For instance, the standards for determining subject matter eligibility may change not only within each jurisdiction, but also from one jurisdiction to another.
This webinar provides a review of some of the differences between the practice before the USPTO and before the EPO. The webinar also attempts to provide some guidance to patent prosecutors to avoid prosecution pitfalls in both jurisdictions.
Presented by: Malgorzata Kulczycka of Hickman Palermo Becker and Bingham LLP, and Eric-Michael Dokter of VJP mbB, Germany, and VJP LLP.
In response to Covid-19, AIPLA has put in-place a new process for Multiple Attendee Site registrations that allows each site registrant to participate in the webinar independently.
Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS: $65
- For multiple-attendee sites, each registered participant will receive individual logins due to Covid-19 social distancing requirements.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.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.
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.
Qualcomm Wins Appeal in Antitrust Suit
August 12, 2020The Ninth Circuit on August 11, 2020, vacated a 2019 ruling that held that Qualcomm was charging phone makers “unreasonably high” licensing fees and thwarting competition.
Lab Instrument Maker Beats Suit Over Ex-Employee’s Lamp Tech
August 11, 2020The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 7, 2020, held that Petroleum Analyzer Co. (PA), a leading lab instrument maker, didn’t steal a former employee’s trade secrets covering a sulfur-detecting lamp.
Federal Circuit Affirms Limits on How Government Uses PACER Fees
August 7, 2020The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 6, 2020, affirmed that the government can use PACER revenues for operating the electronic court record system, but not for unrelated court technology projects.
Bee Farm Didn’t Infringe Copyright Related to Honey Harvest Tool
August 6, 2020The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 4, 2020, held that a bee farm didn’t infringe a copyright related to a honey harvesting aid when it replaced the tool with its own version.
Teva Beats Patent Infringement Suit Over Generic Thyroid Drug
August 5, 2020Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., an American Israeli pharmaceutical company that specializes in generic drugs, beat back IBSA Institut Biochimique’s patent infringement suit concerning the thyroid drug Tirosint.