d1466a85-90fb-4042-be95-40bd0d9b40fd.png?sfvrsn=8f0f5f55_1)
5/12 - Closing Plenary
May 12, 2023 8:30 AM to 12:00 PM
A Look Forward to Next Year
9:00 - 10:00 AM - Special Program
10:00 - 10:15 AM NETWORKING BREAK
10:15 - 12:00 PM
Moderator:
Elise Selinger, Caterpillar, San Diego, CA
Artificial Intelligence (AI) as the Inventor
Speaker:
Ryan Abbott, University of Surrey, Pacific Palisades, CA
Trends in Trade Dress, Trademark, and Copyright
Speaker: TBD
Patent Litigation Trends: Focus on PTAB, Western District of Texas, and the District of Delaware
Speaker:
Mark Lezama, Knobbe Martens, Irvine, CA
Speakers
-
Selinger, Elise
Lead IP Legal Counsel
From her decade of experience as a materials engineer to her law practice today, Elise has always been driven by analyzing and improving technologies. Elise’s professional experience ranges from working for major national brands to working with consumer startups and brand owners. She has crafted patents to protect consumer technologies such as moisture-wicking sports apparel and fingerprint-resistant electronic screens, as well as commercial products like downhill drilling tools for oil and gas companies and virtual whiteboards for enterprise and consumer use. -
Lezama, Mark
Knobbe Martens | Partner
Mark Lezama is a litigation partner in Knobbe Martens Orange County office specializing in patent disputes. Mark represents patent owners and accused infringers alike, in jurisdictions all across the country. He approaches litigation thoughtfully, working with clients to position their cases for meaningful victories. In a recent contract case involving a patent license, Mark obtained for his client a court-ordered injunction requiring the licensee to honor its agreement and withdraw its challenges to his client’s patents at the Patent and Trademark Office. When the licensee appealed, Mark obtained an affirmance from the Ninth Circuit for his client. In another case, Mark obtained key evidentiary rulings for his client early on, laying the groundwork for the court to rule that his client did not infringe just six months into the case.