Sign In

2016 Annual Meeting Session Materials

AM16 Register Today Banner.jpg


 Content Editor Web Part


Welcome to the 2016 AIPLA Annual Meeting session materials page. Papers are available to all registered attendees. If a speaker has submitted material, there will be a link(s) to their bio, paper, and slides next to their name.

 A DVD with all the submitted session materials will be sent to all registrants about 6 weeks after the conference. We will also have audio available online about 6 weeks after the meeting.

To access the session handouts, please Sign-In by clicking "Sign In" in the upper right corner of this web page. If you are having any trouble accessing the session handouts, please send us an email or call 703.415.0780.


 Download All Sesstion Materials(68 MB - last updated 11/1/2016 at around 12:00 PM EST)



 Thursday, October 27

* Committees meetings are open to all attendees unless otherwise noted. Tickets Required
6:30 – 8:00 AM
Committee Meetings*
6:30 - 8:00 AM
Law Practice Management Breakfast Meeting
Business Development: Where is Your Next Client Going to come from?
Corporate Practice Breakfast Meeting
(Corporate In-House Counsel Only)
7:00 - 8:00 AM
Content and Branding Leadership Group (Leadership Group Members Only)
Global IP Leadership Group (Leadership Group Members Only)
Professional Programs US Bar/EPO Liaison Council (Council Members Only)
8:00 – 9:00 AM
Opening Plenary Session
Welcome Remarks Committee of the Year Announcement
9:00 AM – 12:00 Noon
Concurrent Morning Tracks
T1: Patent Prosecution
Information Disclosure Statements and the Duty of Disclosure: When Is Enough Enough?
      Manny W. Schecter, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY (Bio)
The Current Standard of Disclosure, the Tools to Conform, and Tales to Consider from the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline
     William R. Covey, Director of Office of Enrollment and Discipline, US Patent & Trademark Office,
Alexandria, VA (invited) (Slides)
Enough is Enough — Round 1 Goes to the Patent Practitioner
       Mercedes K. Meyer, Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Washington, DC (Papers, Slides)
Enough is Enough — Round 2 Goes tothe Litigator
        Ken Adamo, Kirkland and Ellis, Chicago, IL Enough is Enough — Rebuttal Time (Bio, Papers,
10:15 - 10:45 AM Networking Break
Making a Better Patent — From the System to the Practitioner
    Paul R. Kitch, PC, Nixon Peabody, LLP,Chicago, IL
An Update on the USPTO Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative: Overview, and What It
Means For Your Practice Now and Into the Future
     Valencia Martin-Wallace, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality, US Patent & Trademark
Office, Alexandria, VA (invited)
Your Last Breadth: The Role and Repercussions of Broad Claims in a Patent Portfolio
     Bryan Wheelock, Harness Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Clayton, MO  (Papers, Slides)
You Can’t Get Cream Without Milk: Overly Restrictive Patent Eligibility Standard
Stifles Innovation and Economic Growth
   James D. Hallenbeck, Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, PA, Minneapolis, MN  (Bio, Paper)
T2: Patent Litigation
The Federal Rule Changes, Form 18, and the New Pleading Requirements
Intro as to Elimination of Form 18
      Eric Hutz, Reed Smith, Wilmington, DE (Bio, Slides)
Impact of Iqbal/Twombley on Other Litigation, What is the Standard?
The Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Western District of Pennsylvania, US Courthouse,
Pittsburgh, PA (invited) (Bio)
What Does a Patent Owner Need to Include in the Complaint? What is the Standard for DJ Counterclaims? Does this Apply to Affirmative Defenses in the Answer?
Steven Spears, McDermott Will & Emery, Houston, TX (Bio, Paper)
ITC Pleadings — Level of Details Required in the Petition and in the Response? Impact of Changes in the Federal Rules?
 Brian Busey, Morrison Foerster, LLP, Washington, DC (Bio, Paper)
Determining Proportionality and its Impact on Discovery? Impact of Detailed Pleadings Both on Scope of Discovery and on Litigation Holds?
Matt Powers, Tensegrity Law Group,pppRedwood Shores, CA (Bio, Paper)
10:15 - 10:45 AM Networking Break
Litigation Updates: §102, 103, and the ITC
David McCombs, Haynes & Boone, Dallas, TX        
Everything is Awe-bvious, or is it?: Development of Obviousness and Analogous Art Case Law
Mansi Shah, Merchant & Gould, PC, San Jose, CA (Bio)
Pitfalls of a Patent Killer: An Update on theLaw and Application of the On-Sale Bar Court History and Recent Decisions
Jerry R. Selinger, Patterson + Sheridan, LLP,Dallas, TX (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Digital Transmission Ownership: An Overview of the Current State of ITC Jurisdiction over Digital Transmissions as well as a Look Towards the Future
F. David Foster, Foster, Murphy, Altman& Nickel, PC, Washington, DC (Bio, Paper)
T3 Trademark/Copyright
 Modern TTAB Practice: The New TTAB Rules of Practice and the Effect of TTAB Decisions in Subsequent Trademark Litigations
Kathleen Cooney-Porter, Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PC, Fairfax, VA (Bio)
Jonathan Hudis, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Washington, DC  ( Bio,Papers​)
Cheryl Butler, Interlocutory Attorney, US Patent & Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA   (invited)( Bio)
The Honorable David Mermelstein, Administrative Trademark Judge, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, US Patent & Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA (invited)( Bio)
10:15 - 10:45 AM Networking Break
Copyright Reform: What Changes are Needed and Which are Coming?
Lisa Dunner, Dunner Law, PLLC, Washington, DC (Papers)
A Practitioner’s Perspective on Small Claims and Other Statutory Changes
Nancy Mertzel, Herrick Feinstein, LLP, New York, NY (Bio, Papers)
Update on Congress’s Ongoing Review of the Copyright Act
Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC
The Copyright Office of the Future
June Besek, Columbia University Law School, New York, NY
12:00 – 12:30 PM Lunch Reception (Open to all attendees)
12:30 – 2:00 PM Luncheon (Tickets Required)
        The Honorable David Ruschke, Chief Judge, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, US Patent & Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA
2:00 – 3:30 PM
Concurrent Afternoon Tracks
T1 Corporate
IP Budgets and Managing Expectations: A Conversation Between In-House and
Outside Counsel About Money and Expectations in 2017
An interactive panel relating to managing the relationship between in-house and outside counsel, including selection of outside counsel, determining the right work split between inhouse and outside counsel, budgeting and fee structures, quality review and managing and mitigating mistakes, errors or omissions in all areas of IP practice, including patent preparation and prosecution, litigation and licensing.
Frank Gerratana, Fish & Richardson, Boston, MA (Bio)
            Danielle Johnston Holmes, Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
            (Holmes_bio.pdfHolmes.Johnston Holmes_paper.pdf Holmes_paper., )
           Jim Sherwood, Google, Washington DC (Sherwood_Bio.pdfBio)
         Sean Reilly, The Clearing House Payments Company, Askeladden — Patent Quality,New York, NY 
         (Bio, Papers)
T2 Litigation
I Didn’t See That Coming! — Dealing with Unpleasant Surprises from Demand Letters and Reverse Trademark Confusion Claims
Juliet Mitchell Dirba, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Austin, TX (Bio)
The Impact of State Demand Letter Legislation on Your Client (and Your Bar License) — A Nationwide Survey of Existing and Pending Legislation
Woodrow H. “Woody” Pollack, GrayRobinson, PA, Tampa, FL
Avoiding the ‘Meep Meep’ Effect — Navigating the Potential Pitfalls of Language In Your Demand Letters
P. Daniel Bond, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Squirrels Armed With Bazookas — Exploring Trends in Reverse Confusion Cases; Setting Expectations for Concurrent Use Arrangements, and Framing a Persuasive Demand Letter
John Crittenden, Cooley, LLP, San Francisco, CA (Bio, Paper, Slides)
T3 Trademark
Kieran G. Doyle, Cowan Liebowitz Latman, New York NY (Bio)
TTAB Updates: A Year of Critical Developments
 John L. Welch, Wolf Greenfield, Boston, MA (Bio, Papers)
Implications of In re Tam, In re Brunetti, et. al, and the Future of Disparaging,
Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks —Does the Right to Free Speech Give you a
Right to Register? “Impact of TTAB Decisions in Litigation of Registrability of Disparaging, Immoral and Scandalous Marks”
William G. Barber, Pirkey Barber, PLLC, Austin, TX (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Elizabeth Ann Morgan, Paz Horowitz, Abogados/ Morgan Law Firm, Quito, Ecuador (Bio)
3:30:00 – 5:30 PM
Committee Educational Sessions*
C1 Antitrust Law/Biotechnology/ Mergers & Acquisitions
(Joint Session) (120 Minutes of CLE Requested)
Zika Virus—How Ready Are We? Bio/ Pharma, M&A and Antitrust Issues
 A panel of in-house experts experienced in the commercialization of bio/pharma technologies will provide insights on biopharma IP strategies for cutting edge technologies (e.g., a Zika virusvaccine or diagnostics), as well as strategies for positioning a company, and/or evaluating opportunities for mergers & acquisitions. We will also feature a speaker from the FTC to discuss antitrust actions related to biopharma and pharma products and services.
Chuck B. Cappellari, Hologic, San Diego, CA
Mary Trachta, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
Andy Kamage, Johnson & Johnson-Intellectual Property  Department,  Leiden CN  Netherlands
 (Bio, Papers)
Shari Corin, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
Daniel Walker Attorney, Health Care Division ww
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC c2 Patent Law/Patent-Relations with the USPTO
(Joint Session) (90 Minutes of CLE Requested)
Claim Interpretation Through-out Your Patent’s Lifecycle: From Obtaining Your Patent Through Litigation Come hear about USPTO Examiner training and how to apply broadest reasonable interpretation when interpreting claims; a discussion and comparisons from eminent practitioners in all areas of patent law, during three phases of the patent lifecycle — from patent prosecution through possible litigation and inter partes review. Updates after Cuozzo will be considered.
Ernie Beffel, Haynes Beffel & Wolfeld, LLP,Half Moon Bay, CA
The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of BRI
Richard Torczon, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Washington, DC (Paper, Slides)
Claim Interpretation in IPR — BRI from the PTAB Perspective
Christopher Blaszkowski, RatnerPrestia, PC, Valley Forge, PA (Papers)
A Prosecutor’s View: BRI During Patent Prosecution Charlie Bieneman,
 Bejin Bieneman, PLC, Detroit, MI  (Paper, Slides)
Examiner Training and Objectives When Applying BRI
Speaker: TBD
C3 Trademark Internet/Trademark Law/ Trademark Litigation/Trademark-Relations with USPTO/Trademark Treaties and International Law (Madrid Protocol  Subcommittee)
(Joint Session and Reception) (90 Minutes of CLE Requested)
Jennifer Kovalcik, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Nashville, TN (Bio)
Franchising and Trademarks: Be Vigilant!
Peter Klarfeld, Gray Plant Mooty, Washington, DC
USPTO Trademark Examination and TTAB Updates
Hon. Mary Boney Denison, Commissioner for Trademarks, US Patent & Trademark    Office, Alexandria, VA (invited)
Hon. Sharon Marsh, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, US Patent & Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA (invited)
Hon. Gerard F. Rogers, Chief Administrative Trademark Judge at the TTAB US Patent and trademark Office, Alexandria, VA (invited)
• Reception immediately following the meeting
* Committees meetings are open to all attendees unless otherwise noted. Tickets Required
3:30 – 5:30 PM
Committee Meetings*
5:30 – 6:30 PM
New Members/ First-Time
6:00 – 7:30 PM
LGBT Diversity Reception
Friday, October 28
6:45 – 8:45 AM
Committee Meetings*
8:45 – 11:45 AM
Concurrent Morning Tracks
T1 PTAB Reloaded PTAB Trials: A Live PTAB Hearing
William P. Atkins, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, McLean, VA
The PTAB has been invited to put on a LIVE, or a mock, hearing of a case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Three Judges will participate and give tips for practice and hearings before the Board.
10:15 - 10:45 AM Networking Break
Best Practices, Bad Ideas and Other Tips from the PTAB
William P. Atkins, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, McLean, VA
Speakers: PTAB Judges (invited)
In re Cuozzo and a Review of Recent Decisions on PTAB Issues at the Federal Circuit
Erika Harmon Arner, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA
A Look at the Statistics — Because Your Clients Want to Know
James Hietala, Intellectual Ventures, Bellevue, WA (Bio, Papers)
T2 International IP
 Global IP Protection and Enforcement Strategies
Stephanie Bald, Kelly IP, Washington, DC
 Customs Seizure Practices Around the World: How Does the US Compare?
Bruce W. Longbottom, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis IN (Bio)
Leveraging Information from Foreign Seizures to Protect Rttttights at the US Border
Timothy Trainer, Global IP Strategy Center, PC, Washington, DC (Bio, Paper, Slides)
European Trademark Reform: What’s Different and Why Does It Matter?
Pierluigi Roncaglia, Siblegal, Florence, Italy (Bio, Paper, Slides)
10:15 - 10:45 AM Networking Break
The UPC and the European Patent System: What is Happening Next (and
What are the Consequences of the UK’s “Brexit” Vote)
Rebecca Lawrence, Redd Solicitors, LLP, London, United Kingdom (Bio) (Slides)
A Prosecutor’s View:
John Brunner, Carpmaels and Ransford, LLP, London, United Kingdom (Bio)
A Litigator’s View:
Dr. Andreas von Falck, Hogan Lovells International, LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany (Bio, Slides)
EPO’s Insight:
Michael Fröhlich, Director of International Legal Affairs, European Patent Office, Munich, Germany (invited)
T3 Trade Secrets
The Defend Trade Secrets Act: What Every Outside and In-House Counsel Needs To Know Now
Russell Beck, Beck Reed Riden, LLP, Boston, MA (Bio, Slides)
How We Got Here: The History of the DTSA and it’s Key Provisions
Peter J. Toren, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley, PLLC, Washington, DC (Bio, Papers)
Practical Implications of the DTSA for In-House Counsel and Business Owners
Pamela Passman,, Washington, DC (Paper, Slides)
The Future of Federal and State Trade Secret Protection
James Pooley, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Menlo Park, CA (Bio, Paper, Slides)
10:15 - 10:45 AM Networking Break
Practical Tips for Trade Secret Protection in the Ever-Evolving Digital Age
Thomas F. Lebens, Fitch Even, San Luis Obispo, CA (Bio)
Victoria Cundiff, Paul Hastings, New York, NY (Bio, Paper, Slides)
John D. Rome, Intensity Analytics Corporation, Warrenton, VA (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Trends in Federal Regulation of Cybersecurity: The Evolving Regimes
Tanya Forsheit, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, Los Angeles, CA (Bio, Paper, Slides)
11:45 – 12:15 PM Lunch Reception (Open to all attendees)
12:15 – 1:45 PM Luncheon (Tickets Required)
The Honorable Michelle Lee, Director, US Patent &Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA
2:00 – 3:30 PM
Concurrent Afternoon Tracks
T1 State of the IP Union: Addressing the Hot Topics of Today for Tomorrow’s Business
Join us for an interactive discussion from counsel across industry sectors as they breakdown the key legal changes of our time, how it is impacting on their sectors, and the take-away for outside counsel. Speakers from pharma, high tech and manufacturing sectors give their perspectives on issues selected from §101, impacts of the AIA including inter partes review, regulatory changes impacting on IP such as the BPCIA, and anti-trust issues relating to IP transactions.
Timothy Meigs, Beckton Dickinson, Research Triangle Park, NC (Bio)
Philip Petti, USG Corporation, Chicago, IL (Bio, Papers)
Laurie C. Self, Qualcomm Inc., Washington, DC
Adrian G. Looney, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY
Micky Minhas, Chief Patent Counsel, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
T2 Patent Licensing
The Nuts and Bolts of Licensing: Strategies for Negotiating to Yes
Kirk Dailey, Google, Chicago, IL  (Bio)
Learn About “Must Have” Licensing Terms From the Perspective of Both Sides
Eric Silverman, 3M Office of Intellectual Property Counsel, St. Paul, MN (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Assessing Value: How Much Is That Patent Really Worth? Techniques for Valuing Patents
Roy D’Souza, Ocean Tomo, Chicago, IL (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Anatomy of a Portfolio License Agreement When the Portfolio Includes Standard-Essential Patents: Valuation, Royalties, and Negotiation
 License agreements include a multitude of terms and conditions that impact the oyalties and fees the parties ultimately negotiate. Even the structure of the consideration will vary based on the specifics of each deal and the parties’ respective interests. This session will showcase how these compromises are made in the context of the negotiation and how standard-essential patents influence the negotiations when they are part of the licensed portfolio.
Phyllis Turner-Brim, Starbucks Coffee Company,Seattle, WA  (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Michele Herman, Metabl, Inc., Bellevue, WA (Bio, Paper, Slides)
T3 Copyright
The Software Innovation and Protection Dilemma — Guidance Please! Copyrights and Patents
Craig Whitney, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz, New York, NY (Bio)
What We All Should Understand About the Scope of Patent Protection for Software. Where Do You Draw The Line? Copyrights and Patents in Protecting Software Innovations
 Ross Dannenberg, Banner Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, DC (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Remember Alice? Why Copyright for Software is Not an Abstract Idea (Or Is It?). Does Copyright Provide the Best Answers for Software Innovation, Where Patent Protection Fails? What Benefits Does Copyright Protection Provide That Patents Don’t?
Aaron M. Panner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, ​Evans & Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC
Much Ado About Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) Structures — The Limits of Copyright Protection For Software. Why It Matters, and How Fair Use Impacts The Scope of Copyright Protection: Oracle v. Google
Matthew S. Hellman, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Synopsis v. ATopTech: A Case Study. Why Copying a Command Set of Instructions for Electronic Design Automation Software Cost ATopTech $30.4 Million in Damages for Copyright Infringement, but Synopsis Could Not Maintain its Patent Claims After PTAB Finds Them Obvious
Michael W. Carroll, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC
3:30 – 5:30 PM
Committee Educational Sessions
C1 Patent Litigation/New Lawyers
(Joint Session) (120 Minutes of CLE Requested)
Damages 101
Melissa Finocchio, Intellectual Ventures, Bellevue, WA  (Bio)
Hitting a Moving Target: A High Level Guide to Patent Damages Issues
 An introduction to atent damages addressing available remedies, as well as provide some contextual background about the changing damages landscape and some of the major cases and issues that need to be considered in damages analysis (apportionment, EMVR, rules of thumb, Nash, Halo, VirnetX, etc.).”
Kurt Pankratz, Baker Botts, LLP, Dallas, TX
Tying the Facts of the Case to the Royalty Analysis: A Peek into an Expert’s Approach to Patent Damages
A presentation by a patent damages expert explaining the methodology he uses (which the Federal Circuit approved of in at least one case in Summit 6), and how it differs from testimony that has been stricken. The goal of this presentation is to provide some insights into the types of methodologies that the Federal Circuit finds acceptable.
Paul Benoit, Nouvelle Analytics, Austin, TX (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Not All Things That Count Can Be Counted: Approaches and Considerations for Patent Damages A presentation by a patent damages expert regarding other appropriate approaches and considerations for patent damages.
A presentation by a patent damages expert regarding other appropriate approaches and considerations for patent damages. The speaker will also provide suggestions on how to improve the damages process and product.
Carol Ludington, Ludington Ltd., Willernie, MN (Bio, Paper, Slides)
The Art and Science of Hiring the Right Patent Damages Expert
 A discussion on what a new lawyer needs to do when they are responsible for damages in a case and how to select damages experts.
William Barrow, Mayer Brown, LLP, Washington, DC (BioPaperSlides)
C2 Chemical Practice/Education/
Law Students/Patent Agents
(Joint Session) (120 Minutes of CLE Requested)
Now is the Time! Align Your Strategies for International Patent Application Filings
Please join the AIPLA Chemical Practice, Education, Law Students and Patent Agents Committees and their hosted panel of seasoned practitioners who will offer recommendations and practice tips for the patent application to be filed in multiple jurisdictions in the chemical and related arts. Our featured panelist from Canada, China, Europe, India and Japan will propose considerations for attaining patentable subject matter, written description, and enablement in light of country laws and rules of procedure. The panel will also enlighten us on patent harmonization efforts.
Kimberly Braslow, AstraZeneca Global IP, Gaithersburg, MD (Bio)
European Law and Best Practices for Application Drafting
Matthew Barton, Forresters, Munich, Germany (Bio, Paper, Slides)
Canadian Law and Best Practices for Application Drafting
John Norman, Gowling WLG, Ottowa, Ontario, Canada (Papers)
Indian Law and Best Practices for Application Drafting
Sharad Vadehra, Kan and Krishme, New Delhi, India (Bio, Papers), Slides)
Japan Law and Best Practices for Application Drafting
Hiroshi Sato, Kawaguti & Partners, Japan ( Papers , Slides)
China Law and Best Practices for Application Drafting
Shanqiang Xiao, Beijing East IP Ltd. / Beijing East IP Law Firm, Beijing, China (Papers)
Patent Harmonization
Rachel Kahler, General Mills, Minneapolis, MN (Bio, Paper, Slides)
C3 International and Foreign Law/
IP Practice in Europe
(Joint Session) (120 Minutes of CLE Requested)
Update and Practical Tips: European IP Practice Post Brexit
The session will cover a broad range of IP rights and provide practical tips taking into consideration the impact of Brexit as well a comparative analysis of prosecution pitfalls in a US /EU context. More specifically speakers will provide practical insight into the impact of Brexit on Trademark and Design rights as well as other IPO rights such as SPCs. A case study on frequent pitfalls in prosecuting US originated patents in the EPO will be followed by an update on EPO practice.
Tony Rollins, CIPA, London, UK
Tania Clark, ITMA, London, UK
Michael Williams, Cleveland IP, London, UK (Bio, Papers)
Michael Fröhlich European Patent Office (EPO), Munich, Germany (invited)  (Bio, Slides)
Christine McCarthy, Barnes & Thornburg,Washington, DC (Bio, Papers)
Sylvain Thivillier, Regimbeau, Munich, Germany (Bio, Papers)
 C4 Industrial Designs

(120 Minutes of CLE Requested)

GUI Protection Update on Hague

Grégoire Bisson, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (invited) (Bio)


Update on Group 2900 at the USPTO

Joel Sincavage, US Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA (invited)

Using Copyright Management Information Under the DMCA to Protect Designs

Garfield Goodrum, Goodrum Design Law, Boston, MA ( Paper)

Protecting GUIs

Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, Washington, DC

Design Patent Functionality: Apple andEthicon and Tips for Going Forward

Margaret Polson, Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC, Westminster, CO

(Bio, Paper, Slides)

3:30 – 5:30 PM

Committee Meetings*

 4:30 – 5:30 PM

Industrial Designs (120 Minutes of CLE Requested)


Saturday, October 29
* Committees meetings are open to all attendees unless otherwise noted. Tickets Required
Closing Plenary Session The Year-in-Review
Georgann Grunebach, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation Fox Group Legal, Los Angeles, CA ( Bio )
Raymond M. Gabriel, Ciena Corporation, Hanover, MD
Melissa Hunter-Ensor, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Boston, MA
Trade Secret
Darryl M. Woo, Vinson & Elkins, San Francisco, CA
Robert Brauneis, The George Washington University Law    school, Washington,DC
Top Five Ways to Become an IP Malpractice Defendant
ETHICS CLE (60 Minutes)
Hilda C. Galvan, Jones Day, Dallas, TX