Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

AIPLA CLE Webinar: Patent Prosecution: Whither Eligibility, The One True Specification; Prosecution Tips Before the USPTO

May 6, 2021 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM

Credits

1.5 CLE Credits Available

Registration

Fee: No Fee to attend for AIPLA members. There is a fee for CLE processing.

Register Now

For the last seven years, inventors, patentees, patent attorneys, and even federal judges have struggled to understand the Supreme Court’s patent-eligibility test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. That case’s two-part inquiry is surprisingly difficult to apply in practice, which has led to uncertainty about what can be patented across multiple industries. This presentation will provide a brief discussion of three factors that the courts and USPTO look for when evaluating claims under Alice. If your claims incorporate these three factors, they are much more likely to be eligible.

Audience participation is encouraged and expected for this webinar! So, please feel free to prepare a few questions for the panelists about the topics being presented. This webinar will feature periods of time dedicated to discussions originating from the audience.  So, we look forward to hearing your comments and questions during the webinar to spur the discussions!

 
 
Presented by: Michael Borella of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP; Suzannah Sundby of Canady + Lortz; Jameson Ma of Bookoff McAndrews; and moderated by Gauri Dhavan of Zoll Medical Corp


Sponsored by: Western Union & Relativity Patents


This event is free to AIPLA members who are not requesting CLEStandard webinar pricing applies to those requesting CLE. CLE is included for our All Access Pass holders and Corporate Subscribers.

Pricing below only applies to those requesting CLE

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

  • TMAcmts-7-19-logo AIPLA Submits Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020

    July 19, 2021

    On July 19, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) of 2020. The comments addressed seven aspects of the NPRM: (1) ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings; (2) the petition filing fee; (3) the identification of the real party in interest in a petition; (4) flexible response periods; (5) letters of protest; (6) attorney recognition; and (7) the proposed burden hours for private sector respondents.
  • Minerva-6-9-21-logo Supreme Court Rules to Keep the Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel in Minerva v. Hologic

    June 29, 2021

    On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the doctrine of assignor estoppel, but with limits on its application. This ruling is consistent with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on March 1, 2021.
  • Arthrex-Direct-logo Supreme Court Reverses and Vacates Federal Circuit in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    June 21, 2021

    On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and vacated the Federal Circuit decision, dividing 5-4 on the judgment in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. In this majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) during inter partes review is constitutionally incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
  • EndorseTC-6-15-logo AIPLA Endorses Nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    June 15, 2021

    On June 15, 2021, AIPLA submitted a letter to the Honorable Richard J. Durbin and the Honorable Charles L. Grassley, Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Committee on the Judiciary. This letter supported the nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham, President Biden's nominee for Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. AIPLA wrote that Ms. Cunningham’s background and professional experience demonstrate that she is qualified to serve in that position, and that she would make an excellent addition to the Federal Circuit.
  • 1800Contacts-6-21-logo U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Vacates Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission in 1-800 Contacts Case

    June 11, 2021

    On June 11, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), finding that 1-800 Contact’s “typical trademark settlement agreements” did not unreasonably restrain trade in violation the Section 5 of the FTC Act given the lack of direct evidence of an anticompetitive effect and the strong procompetitive justification of protecting 1-800 Contract’s trademarks. The Court of Appeals also found that it did not have sufficient experience with the type of conduct at issue to permit the abbreviated antitrust analysis favored by the Commission, applying a full-blown rule of reason analysis instead. The Court remanded the case to the Commission with instructions to dismiss it.