Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

AIPLA CLE Webinar: Design Patent Priority: 112 Support for Continuing and Amended Design Patent Claims

July 14, 2020 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM (Eastern Daylight Time)

Credits

1.5 CLE Credits

Registration

Fee: $99.00 and Up

Register Now

This webinar will focus on recent issues and new developments relating to written support in design patents.  Topics will include the level of drawing identity, consistency and written description for amended claims as well as requirements for design applications claiming priority to utility applications.  The current USPTO position and recent caselaw and ex parte decisions will be discussed, including validity challenges, design patent reissue cases, and tips for preparing new applications. 

Presented by:  George Raynal of Saidman DesignLaw Group LLC and James Aquilina of Quarles & Brady LLP

site pricing covid

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
Special rate for AIPLA STUDENT MEMBERS:  $10


Registration includes:

  • 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.

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

  • united-nations-covid-19-response-m6OZNfmo2Dk-unsplash-WEB Copyright Office Further Extends Certain Timing Provisions Due to COVID-19

    July 14, 2020

    The Copyright Office is further extending the temporary adjustments to certain timing provisions under the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 national emergency.
  • Toyota web Toyota Fails to Revive Patent on Fingerprint-Reducing Coating

    July 13, 2020

    The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 10, 2020, affirmed the invalidation of Toyota Motor Corp.’s patent on a coating for reducing the appearance of fingerprints on touchscreen displays. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd., Fed. Cir., No. 18-1906, unpublished 7/10/20.
  • Youtube 400x200 YouTube Can’t Be Forced to Fully Identify Piracy Culprits in EU

    July 10, 2020

    Google’s Youtube cannot be required to hand over the IP addresses, telephone numbers, or email addresses of its users who have uploaded copyright-infringing films to its platform, the Court of Justice of the European Union held on July 9, 2020. C‑264/19, Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google Inc., 2020 E.C.R.
  • ECT 400x200 Patent Owner History of Abusive Suits Mandates New Fees Look

    July 9, 2020

    The Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020, said that a Florida federal court failed to properly consider a patent owner’s history of frivolous litigation when it denied a request for attorneys’ fees from the owner’s latest target. Elec. Commc’n Techs LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com LLC, Fed. Cir., No. 19-2087, 7/1/20.
  • Drilling web Unaltered Password Dooms Copyright Claims for Drilling Company

    July 8, 2020

    The Fifth Circuit on June 2, 2020, ruled that Digital Drilling Data Systems can’t pursue copyright claims against a competitor that scraped data from a program built using an open source database, because the program wasn’t effectively secured, and the copied program wasn’t substantially similar. Digital Drilling Data Syst. v. Petrolink Serv. Inc., 5th Cir., No. 19-20116, 7/2/20.