Induced Infringement in Patent Litigation: Implications of Commil USA v. Cisco Sys. Inc.
Leveraging Opinions of Counsel Focused on Non-Infringement, Protecting IP Rights and Containing Patent Liability Risk
Recording of a 90-minute premium CLE webinar with Q&A
This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel on the implications of the Supreme Court’s Commil USA v. Cisco Sys. Inc. decision for induced infringement claims. The panel will discuss practical issues for companies seeking to contain their patent liability risk and outline steps to protect IP rights.
Outline
- Commil v. Cisco Sys.
- Implications of Commil for induced infringement
- Federal Circuit induced infringement decisions post-Commil
- Practical issues for companies wanting to minimize liability risk
- Steps counsel to patent owners should take to protect IP rights
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key questions:
- What impact will the Commil decision have on opinions of counsel? How does the decision shift the focus of such opinions?
- What does the decision mean for non-practicing entities?
- How does the Commil decision relate to the Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S., June 2, 2014), another Supreme Court decision on induced infringement?
- What strategies can patent counsel employ to protect patent rights in light of Commil?
Faculty
Patrick J. Coyne
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner
Mr. Coyne is a trial and appellate attorney whose litigation experience includes patent, trademark, copyright, and... | Read More
Mr. Coyne is a trial and appellate attorney whose litigation experience includes patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret claims; related antitrust and unfair competition issues; general commercial litigation; products liability; and domestic and international arbitration. He also assists clients with strategic portfolio development and management. He has argued more than 100 cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts. He has represented clients before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC); the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Close
Thomas L. Irving
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner
Mr. Irving has 35 years of experience in the field of IP law. His practice includes due diligence, patent prosecution,... | Read More
Mr. Irving has 35 years of experience in the field of IP law. His practice includes due diligence, patent prosecution, reissue and reexamination, patent interferences, and counseling, including prelitigation, Orange Book listings of patents covering FDA-approved drugs, and infringement and validity analysis in the chemical fields, as well as litigation. He has served as lead counsel in many patent interferences.
Close
Barbara R. Rudolph, Ph.D.
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner
Dr. Rudolph has successfully litigated complex Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV Abbreviated New Drug Application and... | Read More
Dr. Rudolph has successfully litigated complex Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV Abbreviated New Drug Application and biotechnology cases over the past twenty years. She serves as lead counsel in pharmaceutical and biotechnology disputes and has extensive litigation experience in federal courts. She has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and authored an amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark biotechnology patent case. She devises strategies to protect clients' valuable intellectual property involving sophisticated technologies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.
Close