Venue in Patent Litigation: New Strategies After Genentech and TS Tech USA
Determining the Best Forum for Pursuing or Defending Patent Infringement Claims
Recent Federal Circuit decisions prompt surge in defense motions to transfer
Recording of a 90-minute premium CLE webinar with Q&A
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.
Outline
- New case law and its aftermath
- 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
- In re Genentech Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009)
- In re TS Tech USA Corp. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2008)
- Venue issues and declaratory judgments
- Factors impacting selection of venue
- Perceived biases for or against a particular party or class of parties
- Speed to disposition
- Winning percentages for parties
- Percentage of transfers out
- Local patent rules in a particular district
- Court’s experience in handling patent cases
- Likelihood of summary judgment being granted
- Best practices for pursuing and defending motions to transfer venue
- Plaintiffs’ strategies
- Defense strategies
- 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
He has substantial litigation and transactional experience in patent matters, and has worked extensively on several... | Read More
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.
CloseAnthony J. Fitzpatrick
Partner
Duane Morris
He co-chairs the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. He has litigated matters involving diverse... | Read More
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.
CloseIan N. Feinberg
Partner
Mayer Brown
His practice emphasizes intellectual property, technology litigation and antitrust. He has extensive experience... | Read More
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.
CloseAccess Anytime, Anywhere
Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.
CLE On-Demand Audio