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.

Nothing in FRAND is simple, and the world after Unwired Planet is dauntingly uncertain. This webinar brings together litigators from the U.S., China, and Germany, as well as a global SEP owner, to consider the likely behavior of courts and litigants outside of London.

This webinar will describe the issues involved with training AI models using sensitive information. Attendees will also learn about the data privacy risks and legal implications that arise when AI models are trained using sensitive information. Lastly, this webinar will discuss data science techniques that can prevent the problem of “unintended memorization.”

Our panelists will discuss how the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility are not being applied to method of manufacturing patents. Do these cases push the Alice/Mayo test too far? Do they further conflate patent eligibility with obviousness or enablement? And do they put manufacturing, mechanical, and electrical patents more at risk for eligibility challenges (and cancellation)? Join us as we discuss these cases and the current state of patent eligibility.

A decision this spring by the Eleventh Circuit appears to offer publishers of data a novel way to pursue website scrapers by using trade secret law. The decision is thus also an important possible threat to companies that depend on others’ data as fodder for their artificial intelligence solutions. Panelists include a top IP lawyer at a global tech company active in AI and two litigators.

The Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Electrical Power Group v. Alsom has zapped more than twenty software patents since 2016, invalidating them as abstract under Alice. Particularly at risk are inventions in the booming area of artificial intelligence (“AI”). Our panelists, two in-house counsel at technology companies and a law firm expert, will analyze the Electrical Power Group line of cases and provide patent prosecutors with practical advice on how to avoid its pitfalls for AI related inventions.

In this program a balanced panel of experts will analyze the latest milestone in the escalating battles over 5G SEPs. The July decision in Sisvel v. Haier by Germany’s highest court, the Federal Court of Justice (GFCJ), is considered a game-changer in Europe. It is the first FRAND-related case to be heard at the top German court since the Court of Justice of the European Union’s landmark 2015 Huawei v ZTE decision.

This webinar will review and analyze the latest judicial guideposts regarding the role and weight of objective indicia in evaluating the non-obviousness of a claimed invention. Uncertainty in this area dates back to Graham v. Deere, where the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly endorsed the use of secondary considerations but failed to clarify their role.