This webinar will explore the challenge posed by international technology markets to national dispute resolution systems. Such markets are global, but the power of national courts to exercise authority over participants is normally defined by national patent law.

In this IPO Chat Channel session, the panel will discuss considerations underlying trade secret identification for U.S. trade secret litigation. The panel will discuss litigation and legislative trends concerning the timing and scope of the trade secret identification, looking at cases brought under state law as well as under the Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016.

This webinar will provide a roundup of this year’s most significant patent cases.

Despite the constant buzz about artificial intelligence, many commentators predict that blockchain will drive the next wave of legal innovation. This webinar will discuss new possibilities for the use of blockchain in the IP arena and the services that are already available from a bevy of start-ups and other providers.

Last month the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released an update to its January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Unlike the January Guidance, which represented a significant change in how the USPTO applies § 101 in examination and PTAB proceedings, this update is primarily an effort to clarify issues brought up by public comments on the January Guidance and focuses on clarifying practice for patent examiners.

This webinar will look at recent disputes over inventorship to draw lessons for managers of IP and for litigators. Our panel includes a senior patent lawyer at a global pharmaceutical company and two veteran patent prosecutors and IP counselors.

This webinar will address the different ways that data and databases are protected under U.S. law, including the benefits and disadvantages of different IP frameworks such as copyright and trade secrets, and contrast them with data protection laws outside the U.S.

This webinar will help practitioners understand the nuances of the Federal Circuit’s recent DOE jurisprudence, as well as give practical tips both on how to build a case for infringement under the DOE and to defend against it.

Facebook v. Windy City Innovations is the first case at the Federal Circuit centering on deference to the USPTO since the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor v. Wilkie. Even before Kisor, appellants at the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court had already succeeded in arguing against Chevron deference in such cases as SAS v. Iancu. In the current showdown, the Federal Circuit has invited the USPTO to file a brief saying “what, if any, deference” the Court should give to Precedential Opinion Panel decisions. The USPTO’s brief is due on Sept. 17th, just in time for it to be discussed on the webinar.

This webinar will discuss recent Federal Circuit cases that tackle the difficult subject of inherency, which is often not well understood. It will also draw important lessons for patent prosecution.

In this webinar you will learn about various changes which have occurred under Chinese law as well as proposed changes which are currently under consideration.

This webinar will provide tools and insights on courtroom tactics for litigating patent eligibility issues.

Patent owners and challengers alike need to understand the potential of a contractual clause to forestall a challenge at the PTAB. For example, can a boilerplate forum selection clause in a licensing agreement prevent a validity challenge at the PTAB, even though the clause makes no specific mention of PTAB proceedings?

In this webinar, the panel will discuss the intersection between trademark rights and copyrights as it relates to graphic logo trademarks, and best practices for using these trademarks to protect your brand.

This webinar takes as its starting point the May opinion of the Federal Circuit in Amgen v. Sandoz, which stated that “the doctrine of equivalents [DOE] applies only in exceptional cases” and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.”