Bilski: Implications of the Supreme Court's Long-Awaited Ruling
Strategies for Prosecuting or Challenging Patent Process Claims Going Forward
Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A
Conducted on Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Recorded event now available
This CLE webinar will provide guidance for counsel and companies concerning the implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The panel will outline best practices for defending patent applications—or challenging them—given the continuing lack of clear guidelines for patentability.
In the long anticipated Bilski v. Kappos decision on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court rejected patentability of the business process at issue, but it did not eliminate patentability of business methods. The Court, however, declined to specify how and when processes are patentable.
The Court did offer some guidance by rejecting the machine-or-transformation test as the only viable test for determining patent eligibility. It also cautioned against reading its opinion as an endorsement of State Street’s useful, concrete and tangible result.
Further clarification of the standards will develop in the courts. Whether or not a new test or tests will replace or supplement the current test, patent counsel and companies must understand the implications of Bilski to determine next steps to protect patentable subject matter.
Listen as our authoritative panel of intellectual property attorneys examines the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision and its implications for patents on processes. The panel will offer best practices for drafting and prosecuting applications and challenging patents post-Bilski.
- Bilski v. Kappos (U.S. June 28, 2010)
- The Court’s ruling
- Concurring opinions
- Implications of the Bilski ruling
- At the Federal Circuit
- At the PTO
- In the districts courts
- Impact on earlier patent eligibility decisions
- Impact on pending applications
- Best practices following Bilski
- For drafting patent applications
- For prosecuting pending applications
- For challenging patents
The panel will review these and other key questions:
- What are the implications of Bilski for patent eligibility? What is its anticipated impact for past patent eligibility decisions?
- What strategies should patent applicants employ to improve the likelihood of a successful patent application going forward?
- What are the best practices for challenging patents following the Bilski decision?
Erika H. Arner, Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner,
Ms. Arner practices patent prosecution management, client counseling, and litigation and helps clients establish and grow patent portfolios, design and implement procedures to protect intellectual capital, and formulate company-wide IP strategies and policies. She co-authored a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bilski v. Doll and co-authored an amicus curiae brief to the federal circuit in In re Bilski.
Leigh J. Martinson, Partner
McDermott Will & Emery,
He focuses his practice on strategic patent portfolio management and complex patent litigation in the areas of analog circuitry, digital circuitry, computer hardware, software, optics, medical devices, RFID technologies, packet and circuit telecommunications, wireless communications, business methods and internet technologies.
Daniel R. Brownstone, Of Counsel
Fenwick & West,
He focuses on patent portfolio development based on identifying innovations that are economically strategic to the enterprise, and managing the creation of patent assets to maximize the value of those assets. His practice also includes intellectual property due diligence and patent litigation.
CLE On-Demand - Streaming Audio
Includes recorded streaming audio 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 Audio $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, 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
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 thought the seminar was at exactly the right level.
Michelle K. Holoubek
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
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
I like that the webinar was easy to access and offered good presenters and written materials.
I appreciated that the program was directly on point and did not deviate from the subject matter.
McDonald Carano Wilson
Intellectual Property Law Advisory Board
Winthrop & Weinstine
Fulbright & Jaworski
Winston & Strawn
Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
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.