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
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 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.
USPTO Released Proposed Continuing Legal Education Guidelines
October 14, 2020On 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, 2020On 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, 2020The 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, 2020AIPLA 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, 2020The 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.