Parallel Patent Proceedings After Murata, Skyhawke and Shaw: Navigating Claim Construction, Estoppel, RPI, Stays and More
Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A
Conducted on Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Recorded event now available
This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel involved in challenging or defending patent validity on the impact of concurrent proceedings at the USPTO and in the courts on claim construction, estoppel, real-parties-in-interest (RPI) and stays. The panel will offer best practices for dealing with concurrent litigation and USPTO proceedings.
PTAB trial proceedings have emerged as a parallel front in patent litigation, rather than as the alternative envisioned by the America Invents Act. A slew of decisions from the Federal Circuit have established that neither the PTAB nor the district court owe the other any particular discretion and may conduct their respective proceedings entirely independently. For example:
- Murata Machinery v. Daifuku Co., in which the Federal Circuit held that district courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay litigation when an IPR is pending.
- Skyhawke Tech. v. Deca Int’l, in which the Federal Circuit held that district courts are not bound by PTAB claim constructions (and Power Integrations v. Lee, in which they found the converse as well).
- Shaw Indus. v. Automated Creel, in which the Federal Circuit held that PTAB redundant grounds are not estopped in district court.
Consequently, patent counsel must consider the impact of conducting PTAB review and federal court proceedings concurrently when developing litigation strategies. Recent decisions have raised concerns about obtaining stays, introducing evidence from one proceeding in the other, navigating divergent claim constructions, identifying the correct parties to the action, and defining the scope of estoppel that results both from PTAB institution and non-institution. Patent counsel also should consider the relative timing of a litigation and a PTAB proceeding to influence how simultaneous appeals to the Federal Circuit will play out.
Counsel must prepare to address the problem that arose in SAS Institute Inc. v. ComplementSoft LLC (Fed. Cir. June 2016), where the Federal Circuit remanded the matter so the PTAB could hear from the parties on the new claim construction. The PTAB had changed the claim construction in its final decision without giving the parties a chance to brief it first. Is there any way for the district court to make use of the PTAB’s expertise in claim construction despite the different construction standards and the concern raised in ComplementSoft that PTAB claim construction may be a moving target?
Listen as our authoritative panel including a retired district court judge, a former PTAB judge, and a patent attorney seasoned in both types of proceedings examines the interplay between IPR and PGR proceedings and federal court proceedings. The panel will discuss the impact on claim construction as well as estoppel, stays, and the practical considerations when filing an IPR petition. The panel will offer best practices for dealing with concurrent litigation and post-grant proceedings.
- Interplay between the post-grant and federal court proceedings
- Claim construction
- Lessons from recent USPTO actions and litigation
- Best practices for dealing with concurrent litigation and PTAB proceedings
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- What litigation tactics can counsel employ to challenge or defend patent validity?
- What are the implications for claim construction and estoppel when patents are challenged in concurrent proceedings?
- What difficulties do counsel face when challenging or defending patent validity in concurrent proceedings?
Kenneth R. Adamo, Partner
Kirkland & Ellis,
Mr. Adamo has extensive trial experience as lead counsel in jury and nonjury cases before state and federal courts and before the ITC, as well as ex parte and PTAB experience in the USPTO. He has had substantial experience as lead counsel in arbitrations and other alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and actively practices before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, having appeared in 40 appeals to date.
Honorable Faith Hochberg
Hon. Hochberg is a nationally recognized Federal Judge and former U.S. Attorney known for her broad expertise in complex corporate, securities, antitrust, and patent litigation. She retired from the bench in March 2015 and now serves as an independent mediator and arbitrator. During her tenure on the bench, she presided over many MDL cases and class actions involving pharmaceuticals (Hatch-Waxman), antitrust and securities cases. She has been a Patent Pilot judge and was vice chair of the Local Patent Rules Committee in the District of New Jersey.
Scott E. Kamholz, M.D., Ph.D., Partner
Dr. Kamholz has rejoined the firm after several years of service as an Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As an APJ, he handled over 100 inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBM) proceedings. He now leverages his knowledge of the PTAB trial process to assist clients with AIA trial matters. Before his appointment as an APJ, he had extensive experience obtaining patents, evaluating infringement and product clearance concerns, representing clients in licensing and acquisition transactions, conducting patent reexamination proceedings, and consulting in litigation.
CLE On-Demand - Streaming Video
Includes recorded streaming video of full program plus PDF handouts.
On-demand is the only recorded format recognized for CLE credits in DE, IN, KS, LA, MS, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, VA, WI.
AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN*, KS, KY, LA, ME, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH**, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH*, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY (Note: Some states restrict CLE eligibility based on the age of a program. Refer to our state CLE Map for additional information.)
*Only available for attorneys admitted for more than two years. For OH CLE credits, only programs recorded within the current calendar year are eligible - contact the CLE department for verification.
**NH attendees must self-determine if a program is eligible for credit and self-report their attendance.
CLE On-Demand Video $297.00
Includes full event recording plus handouts.
Strafford is an approved provider and self-study CLE credit is available in most states.
AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, KY, ME, MN, MO, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WY (Note: Some states restrict CLE eligibility based on the age of a program. Refer to our state CLE Map for additional information.)
Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording.
Additional copies of a recording can be purchased at a discount. Please call Strafford Customer Service toll-free at 1-800-926-7926 ext 10 or email email@example.com to place your order.
Recorded Webinar Download $297.00
Recorded Audio Download (MP3) $297.00
DVD (Slide Presentation with Audio) $297.00 plus $9.45 S&H
Strafford webinars offer several options for participation: online viewing of speaker-controlled PowerPoint presentations with audio via computer speakers or via phone; or audio only via telephone (download speaker handouts prior to the program). Please note that our webinars do not feature videos of the presenters.
Many states grant CLE credits for on-demand streaming audio programs and recorded events. Our programs are pre-approved in many states. Refer to our state CLE map for state-specific information.
I liked the practical insights, particularly when tied to cases the presenters had worked on.
Strafford provided an enthusiastic presentation that focused on patent practice, not theory.
David H. Vance
Vance Intellectual Property
The subject was presented in an accessible fashion, and the question and answer session was one of the best I've attended. The Strafford speakers were well-informed and provided information to enable listeners to effectively research specific issues.
Tricia Le Meur
Phillips Parker Orberson & Arnett
The interactive questions at the end added value to the educational topic discussed during the presentation.
Ralph H. Heninger
Heninger & Heninger
I appreciated that the seminar’s comprehensive coverage was targeted to those not already expert in this area of law.
Patent Law Advisory Board
Fulbright & Jaworski
Winston & Strawn
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson
Senior IP Counsel
Strafford webinars are backed by our 100% Unconditional Money-Back Guarantee: if you are not satisfied with any of our products, simply let us know and get a full refund. For more information regarding complaints and refunds, please contact us at 1-800-926-7926 ext 10. Complaints regarding this program can be submitted via the course evaluation found in the “Thank you” e-mail at the end of the course.