AIPLA CLE Webinar: Written Description & Enablement: How They Might Change

October 13, 2022 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM

Credits

90 Minutes of CLE

Registration

Fee: View pricing below

Register Now

Most patent litigation cases do not hinge on questions of whether the patents-in-suit meet written description and/or enablement requirements. As a result, these issues do not often reach the Supreme Court of the United States. That may soon change. Companies in three unrelated cases are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on various issues involving written description and/or enablement. This presentation explores the written description and enablement requirements and how they could change.
 
Presented by: Tammy Terry, Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton,
James Kurka, Weatherford International 

 

 

This event is free to AIPLA members who are not requesting CLE. Standard 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

Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS:  $65
Special rate for AIPLA STUDENT MEMBERS:  $10

CLE Pricing

 

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.


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 

CLE is approved with the following states:

  • Alaska
  • Missouri
  • New Jersey (Under New Jersey's Reciprocity Rule)
  • New York (Under New York's Approved Jurisdiction Policy)
  • Pennsylvania
  • Vermont
  • Texas

AIPLA has applied for CLE accreditation in the following states: 

  • Florida
  • Illinois
  • Minnesota
  • Ohio
  • Tennessee
  • Virginia (may not receive Ethics credits)
  • 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 Alabama and Rhode Island

AIPLA does not submit courses for approval in Alabama or Rhode Island.  Attendees needing credit in these states may select the free, no CLE option to watch the webinar and use course materials and their certificate of attendance to request course approval directly from the State Bars. 

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

  • AIPLA Issues Statement on Senator Thom Tillis's Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022

    September 30, 2022

    ARLINGTON, Virginia, August 3, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) released the following statement on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022 introduced by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC):
  • AIPLA Issues Statement Following the Passing of Former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters

    September 30, 2022

    ARLINGTON, VA. September 30, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) released the following statement in response to the passing of former Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters on September 29, 2022
  • AIPLA Files Brief in Support of Petition for Certiorari in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC

    September 21, 2022

    Arlington, VA. September 16, 2022,- The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of the Petition for Certiorari currently pending before the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148. The decision below, decided by the Ninth Circuit, involved the unauthorized use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product that purportedly parodied the Jack Daniel’s brand. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the dog toys infringed its rights under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment protects all “humorous” or parodic uses of others’ trademarks regardless of the nature of the underlying product, becoming the first court to apply such protections outside of Lanham Act disputes involving artistic works.
  • Washington DC Autumn Panorama AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order

    September 7, 2022

    Arlington, VA. August 26, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the proposed pilot program for instituting a Final Pretrial Conference (PFC) requirement in certain TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings. Overall, AIPLA supports the pilot program to give the TTAB an opportunity to evaluate its potential effectiveness, recognizing the burden placed on TTAB Administrative Judges and staff when cases with large records are presented for decision. Therefore, AIPLA supports the TTAB in studying and evaluating ways to make these cases more efficient.
  • EPO Building AIPLA Files Comments on China’s Draft Provisions Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude or Restrict Competition

    August 24, 2022

    Arlington, VA. August 24, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments on Draft Provisions Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude or Restrict Competition issued by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (Draft Provisions).  The comments point out that AIPLA generally believes intellectual property rights (IPR) should not be enforced beyond their effective term limits, given the efficient market realities of portfolio licensing, but recommends the Draft Provisions explicitly permit parties to establish license agreements that license an entire portfolio of IPR, notwithstanding the fact that certain IPRs may expire or be found invalid during the term of an agreement.