Venue in Patent Litigation: New Strategies After Genentech and TS Tech USA

Determining the Best Forum for Pursuing or Defending Patent Infringement Claims

Recording of a 90-minute CLE teleconference with Q&A


Conducted on Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Recorded event now available


This seminar will examine the latest case law developments on patent venue, discuss the evolving venue standards in patent litigation, and offer strategies for pursuing and defending motions to transfer venue.

Description

In recent years, defense motions to transfer venue in patent infringement cases from the Eastern District of Texas to other districts have surged. Two recent Federal Circuit decisions — In re Genentech and In re TS Tech USA Corp. — may prompt additional requests.

Plaintiffs’ counsel have responded to the upswing in motions to transfer by selecting more geographically diverse defendants, suing smaller Texas companies as co-defendants of larger defendants, and splitting cases to provide for multiple cases in a single jurisdiction.

Venue plays a critical role in the outcome of patent litigation. In every patent litigation case, plaintiff and defense counsel must take a fresh look at what forum is perceived to be most favorable to their client and whether a transfer of venue is possible in light of the new case law.

Listen as a panel of patent litigators explains the latest court decisions on patent venue, discusses the developing venue standards in patent litigation, and outlines best practices for pursuing and defending motions to transfer venue.

Outline

  1. New case law and its aftermath
    1. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
    2. In re Genentech Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009)
    3. In re TS Tech USA Corp. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2008)
    4. Venue issues and declaratory judgments
  2. Factors impacting selection of venue
    1. Perceived biases for or against a particular party or class of parties
    2. Speed to disposition
    3. Winning percentages for parties
    4. Percentage of transfers out
    5. Local patent rules in a particular district
    6. Court’s experience in handling patent cases
    7. Likelihood of summary judgment being granted
  3. Best practices for pursuing and defending motions to transfer venue
    1. Plaintiffs’ strategies
    2. Defense strategies
  4. Patent reform and venue

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • What factors should plaintiff and defense counsel consider in selecting a venue for a patent infringement action — whether by original selection of venue or motion to transfer venue?
  • How will the recent decisions in In re Genentech and In re TS Tech USA Corp. impact where plaintiffs file cases and whether defendants request a transfer of venue?
  • What strategies have been effective for patent litigators when pursuing or defending motions to transfer venue?

Faculty

David A. Segal, Partner
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Irvine, Calif.

He has substantial litigation and transactional experience in patent matters, and has worked extensively on several jury trial matters. He has prosecuted and defended patent infringement actions involving products and methods covering paving, medical devices, cable, Internet and voice over IP, computers and computer software and golfing products.

Anthony J. Fitzpatrick, Partner
Duane Morris, Boston

He co-chairs the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. He has litigated matters involving diverse technologies, including factory controls and automation, semiconductors, and water purification, and has gained particular experience in biotechnology, medical devices and other life sciences. He has extensive trial experience and has been lead trial counsel in a number of patent cases.

Ian N. Feinberg, Partner
Mayer Brown, Palo Alto, Calif.

His practice emphasizes intellectual property, technology litigation and antitrust. He has extensive experience handling trials and binding arbitrations, as well as in trial preparation and counseling (including litigation avoidance) regarding patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, licensing, unfair competition, and antitrust matters, particularly in the software and semiconductor industries.

Ordering

Online CLE - Audio Recording

Includes audio streaming of full program plus handouts (available 24 hours after live seminar).

CLE: Pre-approved for participatory or non-traditional/alternate format credit in: CA, HI*, NY*, WV*. Pre-approved for self-study credit in: AK, AZ, MO, MT, TX, VT, WA.
Upon request, also available in: CO, CT*, FL, GA, ID, KY, LA, ME, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR*, SC, TN, UT, WI*, WY. If you are applying for credit in one of these states, make sure to select those states when placing your order.
(*Indicates that Strafford must report attendance.)

Online CLE Audio $149.00
Available 24 hours after the live event

How does this work?


Recorded Event

Includes full event recording plus handouts (available after live seminar).

CLE: Pre-approved for self-study credit in: AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, MO, MT, NY, TX, VT, WA, WV. Upon request, self-study credit is also available in: CO, FL, GA, ID, KY, ME, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR, UT, WI, WY. If you are applying for self-study credit in one of these states, contact Strafford CLE at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35 or CLE@straffordpub.com.

MP3 Download (Audio Only) $49.00
Available 24 hours after the live event

How does this work?

CD $49.00 plus $9.45 S&H
Available ten business days after the live event

Program Materials

Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.

Program Materials

Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.

CLE Credit

Strafford's live seminars qualify for CLE in every state that accredits webinars. They offer you a high quality, cost effective, and convenient CLE option, with no lost travel time or expenses.

More Details>

Customer Reviews

Cutting edge information from people who are in the field.

John McGowan

Donahue Tucker & Ciandella

Content was excellent.

Jonelle Burnham

Kimberly-Clark

The three presentations created a balanced approach.

Cris Navarro

Enloe Medical Center

The program was very to the point — no fluff.

Brian McNamara

Wright Lindsey & Jennings

I liked everything about the teleconference - knowledgeable speakers, well presented, timely topic.  I was very impressed.

James A. Tramonte

Miller Martin

Intellectual Property Law Advisory Board

Stephen R. Baird

Shareholder

Winthrop & Weinstine

Charles S. Baker

Partner

Fulbright & Jaworski

David S. Bloch

Partner

Winston & Strawn

Hung H. Bui

Partner

Antonelli Terry Stout & Kraus

Ian N. Feinberg

Partner

Mayer Brown

Anthony J. Fitzpatrick

Partner

Duane Morris

Craig P. Opperman

Partner

Reed Smith

David Segal

Partner

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

Jeffrey R. Seul

Partner

Holland + Knight

Astrid R. Spain

Partner

McDermott Will & Emery

Mark P. Wine

Partner

Orrick