Allyship is the practice of promoting and advancing social justice, diversity, and inclusion through supporting members of an oppressed or marginalized group. In this webinar, the second in a series of three, speakers will focus on why it is imperative that the majority of the lawyer population – cisgender white males – need to be allies to their diverse colleagues and employees.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Intellectual Property (IP) Attaché Program works to improve IP systems and to help U.S. stakeholders internationally. IP attachés directly assist U.S. businesses and advocate to improve IP policies, laws, and regulations abroad.

This webinar is intended to provide an overview of the Madrid System of International Registration of Trade Marks. Trade Mark owners face budget and time limitations when registering and maintaining a Trade Mark portfolio. Speakers will provide an introduction to the international route for registration of Trade Marks, together with various tips and best practices in the making use of the Madrid System.

2020 was a year for the record books at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which saw landmark decisions at the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, revisions to practice and procedures, as well as continued discussion on the constitutionality of PTAB judges. Seasoned practitioners and corporate counsel will discuss 2020’s major developments and how they may impact patent litigation practice going forward before the PTAB and beyond.

The focus of this first allyship webinar will be focused on speakers sharing personal experiences where they experienced good or poor allyship.  The speakers, in the first webinar, will also share practical tips on how to be better allies – especially in the IP field.

This webinar will provide an overview of how videoconferencing is being relied on increasingly for formal hearings at the European Patent Office – for examination, oppositions and appeals – and how this provides an option for applicants/proprietors and opponents to participate or observe from their home countries.

The Federal Circuit decisions in Sanofi v. Watson and Vanda v. Westward provide blue prints for possibly obtaining, based on Phase III clinical trial results, many more years of U.S patent exclusivity. Please join our expert panel of Meg Tomaska of Eli Lilly & Co., Sarah Hooson of Merck & Co. Inc., and Daniela Gill-Carey of UCB Biopharma SRL, moderated by Tom Irving of Finnegan, to learn all about it.

Several recent cases illustrate the complexity of patent rights transfer and licensing. Our panel -- two in-house counsel in different technology sectors and a licensing expert in private practice -- will explain basic principles to help patent owners avoid pitfalls, recognizing that the devil is in the details of any transaction.

While the patent community awaits the resolution of Arthrex with regard to APJs, its applicability to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board judges is a question occupying trademark practitioners. Since Arthrex, at least two unsuccessful litigants before the TTAB have appealed to the Federal Circuit and asked that court to apply Arthrex to hold the appointments process for TTAB judges unconstitutional. Although the Federal Circuit has so far declined to rule on the applicability of Arthrex to TTAB judges’ appointments in those cases, the court will inevitably face that issue, whether in either of the two pending appeals squarely presenting it or in a future one. And, of course, the Supreme Court’s disposition of the questions before it will very likely inform the Federal Circuit’s holdings on the trademark side.

After a new patent law was formally adopted by China's National People's Congress on Oct. 17, many reports described the changes as almost all upside for those who own patents in the country, creating new mechanisms for patent protection and additional scope for damages. But our expert panel -- a global pharmaceutical attorney with long experience of the country, a veteran patent litigator in China, and a USPTO specialist, say to beware of overly upbeat forecasts.

This webinar, which is free for IPO members, is co-hosted by IPO’s U.S. Post Grant Patent Office Practice and Next Generation Leaders Committees. U.S Post Grant Patent Office Practice Committee Co-Vice Chair TODD WALTERS (Buchanan Ingersoll) will moderate a discussion with PTAB Judge JANET GONGOLA and Acting Vice Chief Judge KALYAN DESHPANDE, who will provide an update on the results of the first months of the program. The panel will also include TIMOTHY TANG (Sterne Kessler), an outside counsel who has participated in the LEAP program, and Next Generation Leaders Committee Co-Chair KAVEH RASHIDI-YAZD (Siemens Energy Corp.), an in-house decision maker who will discuss the benefits of this type of professional development opportunity for corporate clients.

This month, in GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Federal Circuit reinstated a jury's verdict that Teva infringed GSK's patented method of using a blood pressure drug, even though Teva's product was initially launched with a “skinny label” that didn’t mention the infringing method. The precedential decision has potentially far-reaching impacts in Hatch-Waxman and biosimilar litigation – for research agendas and patent prosecution as well.

Overlooked for decades in the field of U.S. pharmaceutical patents, § 112 (f) is the focus of this webinar, presented by experts from Merck, UCB, and Eli Lilly and moderated by Tom Irving (Finnegan).  Speakers will discuss how § 112 (f) can be a tool for achieving means-plus-function (MPF) claims for brand U.S. pharma applicants.  By statute, the claims can cover equivalents by providing for literal infringement. The panel will also explain the need for MPF in pharma.

Our panelists -- an in-house counsel at a major software company, a leading professor of copyright who wrote an amicus brief for Google, and a litigator for Oracle who is co-counsel in the case -- will discuss any surprises in the Justices' questioning or in the counsels' replies, highlight the most memorable interchanges, read some tea leaves, and discuss possible outcomes and their impact.

For centuries, employers have used non-compete contracts (NCCs) to prohibit an employee from working for or becoming a competitor for a certain period of time. But in recent years these state law contracts have faced harsh criticism for limiting the ability of workers to earn a living. Many states have adopted or are considering a combination of reforms, including increasing transparency for workers and limiting non-competes’ application.