Tell a Friend

 

Markman and Claim Construction Hearing in Patent Infringement: What You Need To Know
   LIVE Webcast  

 


Event Details:                                                                                                                                                          

The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. in 1995, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1996, established that claim construction is an issue of law to be determined by the court. Nine years later in Phillips v. AWH Corp., the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the “bedrock principle” that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude”, and that the claims are “of primary importance” and in construing the claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves. In the progeny of subsequent cases, the Federal Circuit has reaffirmed that the claims of a patent are “of primary importance” in defining the invention, and the analytical focus of claim construction must center on the language of the claims themselves. Markman hearings are critical in patent cases to establish the meaning and scope of the claims which, in turn, often facilitates the subsequent determination of infringement or claim validity. Markman hearings are therefore critical in resolving disputes in patent litigations.

The Knowledge Group has assembled a panel of thought leaders to discuss significant topics involved in the claim construction process, including the guiding principles which judges use, the practices of judges in various jurisdictions, the practices in multi-defendant litigations, and the relevance of prior constructions of the same patent claims. Moreover, the speakers will also address the best practices in preparing for Markman hearings in patent infringement cases.

Course Level: Intermediate
Prerequisite: None
Method Of Presentation: Group-Based-Internet
Developer: The Knowledge Group, LLC
Recommended CLE/CPE Hours: 1.75 - 2.0
Advance Preparation: Print and review course materials
Course Code: 124372
NASBA Field of Study: Business Law - 2.00 credit hours
Recording Fee: $299  (Please click here for details) 

 

Featured Speakers for Markman and Claim Construction Hearing in Patent Infringement: What You Need To Know LIVE Webcast :


Agenda  (click here to view more)


SEGMENT 1:
Robert A. McFarlane, Partner,
Hanson Bridgett LLP

  • Intrinsic Evidence: Using the patent specification, claims and file history to support your claim construction.
  • Narrow or Broad? Determining the scope of patent claims based on disclosures in the specification and in the prior art.
  • Extrinsic Evidence: Using dictionaries and treatises to evaluate ordinary meaning.
  • dditional comments on using expert witnesses to establish meaning


SEGMENT 2:
Steven J. Pollinger, Principal ,
McKool Smith

  • How to structure your claim construction hearing presentation, including whether and when to use live witnesses at the claim construction hearing.
  • How to select the terms that you would like construed, including a discussion of when the court is required and not required to construe terms.
  • Whether or not to provide a technology tutorial prior to the claim construction hearing, and if so, what it should contain and what it should look like.


SEGMENT 3:
Willem G. Schuurman , Partner ,
Vinson & Elkins

  • More multiple defendant cases and how the courts are responding to that. How defendants should handle the claim construction process when multiple cases filed by the same plaintiff and involving overlapping groups of patents, have been consolidated for claim construction purposes.
  • Additional comments on the aspects of how you select terms that need to be construed; and
  • Additional comments on how to present an effective technology tutorial.


SEGMENT 4:
Kenneth A. Godlewski, Partner,
Troutman Sanders LLP

  • Potential impact of Federal Circuit en banc hearing in Lighting Control LLC case-reshaping or removing de novo review of claim construction in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies. How to advise district court judges during period case is being briefed and decided by Federal Circuit/U.S. Supreme Court.
  • How to protect your record pending a decision in Lighting Control
  • Potential impact of petition for cert in Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC v. Medtronic, particularly as to importing limitations from the patent specification to limit ordinary meaning of patent claim terms.
  • Using search term negotiations in electronic discovery as predicate for selecting terms for claim construction.
  • If appropriate (no model rules or set court timing orders), selecting the timing of the Markman hearing.


SEGMENT 5:
Rob Kinder, Attorney ,
Dickstein Shapiro LLP

  1. Why the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. et al., Nos. 2012-1014, -1015 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2013), and how this case represents the Court coming full circle from its Cybor decision in 1998.
  2. The most likely outcome for the Court in Lighting Ballast – how the Court will adopt a position that holds claim construction is a legal question comprised of underlying factual considerations subject to deferential (clear error) review on appeal; the likely voting positions of each Federal Circuit judge.
  3. What are the underlying factual considerations that comprise claim construction; should litigants in claim construction proceedings ask district courts right now to make “findings of fact,” especially for favorable claim construction rulings; should litigants demand to “present evidence” during Markman.
  4. (Time permitting) Is the Supreme Court likely to review any decision of the Federal Circuit related to granting deferential review in claim construction.




Hanson Bridgett LLP
Robert A. McFarlane
Partner
speaker bio »»

McKool Smith
Steven J. Pollinger
Principal
speaker bio »»

Vinson & Elkins
Willem G. Schuurman
Partner
speaker bio »»

Troutman Sanders LLP
Kenneth A. Godlewski
Partner
speaker bio »»

Dickstein Shapiro LLP
Rob Kinder
Attorney
speaker bio »»



Who Should Attend?

- Patent Litigators
- In-House Counsel likely for technology, pharma, biotech, & manufacturing companies
- Patent Licensing Attorneys
- IP Attorneys, And Related Consultants
- Other Related Professionals

Why Attend?

This is a must attend for anyone interested in learning the significant topics involved in Markman hearing in patent infringement cases.

- Detailed guidance explained by the most qualified key leaders & experts
- Hear directly from experienced practitioners & thought leaders
- Interact directly with panel during Q&A

Get a chance to ask the speakers live. Please click the registration button below to enroll in this course today. Advanced registration is recommended as space is limited.

Registration Information:                                                                                                                                    


(Click here for information on group registrations and discounts)

** Discounts apply for early registration

Disclaimer:
Please note, the event date is firm although it may be subject to change. Please click here for details.
The Knowledge Group, LLC is producing this event for information purposes only. We do not intend to provide or offer business advice. The contents of this event are based upon the opinions of our speakers. The Knowledge Congress does not warrant their accuracy and completeness. The statements made by them are based on their independent opinions and does not necessarily reflect that of The Knowledge Congress' views. In no event shall The Knowledge Congress be liable to any person or business entity for any special, direct, indirect, punitive, incidental or consequential damages as a result of any information gathered from this webcast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Markman and Claim Construction Hearing in Patent Infringement: What You Need To Know
LIVE Webcast
Event Sponsors / Speaker Firms:




Hanson Bridgett is a law firm with more than 150 attorneys in offices in San Francisco, Sacramento, the North Bay, Silicon Valley and the East Bay. Serving clients since 1958, we are well known in Northern California and have earned a national reputation in many of our practice areas.




With more than 175 trial lawyers working across offices in California, New York, Washington, DC, and Texas, McKool Smith has established a reputation as one of America’s leading trial firms. The firm has won more National Law Journal and VerdictSearch “Top 100 Verdicts” over the last five years than any other law firm. In 2012, the firm was named intellectual property “Firm of the Year” by Benchmark Litigation, and previously was recognized as “IP Firm of the Year” by Law360. McKool Smith represents clients across a broad range of practice areas, including complex commercial litigation, intellectual property, bankruptcy, and white collar defense matters.




Vinson & Elkins LLP has grown to approximately 700 lawyers located in 16 offices around the world, creating a global team of multi-lingual lawyers in numerous practice areas, including an emphasis in the areas of intellectual property, technology, life sciences, and alternative energy sources.




Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 600 lawyers and offices located throughout the United States and China. Founded in 1897, the firm’s heritage of extensive experience, exceptional responsiveness and an unwavering commitment to service has garnered strong, long-standing relationships with clients across the globe. These clients range from multinational corporations to individual entrepreneurs, federal and state agencies to foreign governments, and non-profit organizations to businesses representing virtually every sector and industry.

Troutman Sanders lawyers provide counsel and advice in practically every aspect of civil and commercial law related to the firm’s core practice areas: Business Law, Energy and Industry Regulation, Finance, Litigation and Real Estate. With more than 50 practice groups focused on specific aspects of these areas, the firm is defined by its considerable knowledge base and proactive approach to addressing legal and business challenges.




Combining decades of litigation experience with a robust procurement and asset management practice, Dickstein Shapiro’s Intellectual Property attorneys devise strategies to help clients protect IP assets while maximizing their value. We have handled litigations on both the plaintiff side and defense side involving claims from a few million to hundreds of millions of dollars, including successfully defending suits where patent owners sought hundreds of millions in damages and obtaining a judgment in excess of $500 million on behalf of a plaintiff. In addition to litigation, Dickstein Shapiro attorneys develop comprehensive IP programs and strategies encompassing all aspects of clients’ intellectual property needs, including asset management, patent and trademark procurement, licensing, and counseling.




 

The Knowledge Group, LLC is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700, Nashville, TN, 37219-2417. Website: www.nasba.org



 

We are an approved multi-event sponsor in the state of California. Our provider ID is: 14451. In Texas, Illinois, and Virginia, we submit programs for individual approval in advance. In all other states, once attendance is verified, participants are emailed an official certificate of attendance which they submit to their respective State Bar Associations. Our programs are created with continuing education in mind and are therefore designed to meet the requirements of all State Bar Associations. If you have any questions, please email our CLE coordinator at: info@knowledgecongress.org

Attention New York Attorneys:

This program is approved for CLE credit under New York’s Approved Jurisdiction policy. The Knowledge Group, LLC is an approved sponsor in the state of California, a New York Approved Jurisdiction. This program fulfills the non-traditional format requirement of exceeding 60 minutes in length. Please note only experienced attorneys (more than 2 years) are eligible to receive CLE credit via non-traditional format learning platforms. The Knowledge Group will verify attendance during the webcast via secret words (3 per credit hour) and by auditing attendees log in and log out records. All verification instructions will be provided during the webcast. Once attendance verification requirements have been completed, the attendee will be issued a certificate of attendance be The Knowledge Group for the course with the recommended number of credit hours. The Certificate of Attendance is normally sent via email in 24 hours or less.

To Claim Your CLE Credits:

The attorney should simply include credits earned via Knowledge Group webcasts when computing the total number of CLE credits completed, and keep the Knowledge Group Certificate of Attendance for a period of at least four (4) years in case of audit. An attorney may count towards her/his New York CLE requirement credit earned through the Approved Jurisdiction policy without notifying the CLE Board.

To learn more about New York’s Approved Jurisdiction policy. Please visit: http://www.nycourts.gov/attorneys/cle/approvedjurisdictions.shtml

Attention Pennsylvania Attorneys:

Knowledge Congress is not yet an Accredited Distance Learning Provider in PA, neither the instructors nor any PA attendees will receive credit for the course.



 
Enrolled Agents Sponsor ID Number: 7602U

We have entered into an agreement with the Office of Professional Responsibility, Internal Revenue Service, to meet the requirements of 31 Code of Federal Regulations, section 10.6(g), covering maintenance of attendance records, retention of program outlines, qualifications of instructors, and length of class hours. This agreement does not constitute an endorsement by the Office of Professional Responsibility as to the quality of the program or its contribution to the professional competence of the enrolled individual.