| 6th Utah IP Summit (formerly
the Mid-Winter Institute)
Conference Schedule - February 20, 2004, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
|
| 8:00 |
Registration - Downtown
SLC Marriott, 75 South West Temple |
| 8:30 |
Welcome from the Chair of the
IP Section of the Utah State Bar |
| |
|
Kevin
B. Laurence
Stoel Rives LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah |
| 8:40 |
Strategies for Effective Argument
at the Federal Circuit |
| |
|
Judge Linn will discuss the procedures followed by
federal appeallate courts in deciding cases and will give his views
and insights on what works and what doesn't work in the briefing
and argument of appeals to the Federal Circuit. |
| |
|
Judge
Richard Linn
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| 9:20 |
Are All Inventors Jackals and
are all Patent Attorneys Knaves? What the Courts are saying about
Inequitable Conduct |
| |
|
This talk analyzes 2003 Federal Circuit cases involving
inequitable conduct. We shall examine whether the plague of inequitable
conduct has, like those Biblical plagues on Egypt, been revisited
upon our heads. However that examination comes out, we shall furhter
examine techniques for avoiding this destroying angel. |
| |
|
Thomas
L. Irving
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
Washington, D.C. |
| 10:00 |
Morning Break - Sponsored by
Holland & Hart |
| 10:20 |
Compling with the DMCA: Notice
and Takedown Procedures and ChillingEffects.org |
| |
|
Karl Sun
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, California |
| 11:00 |
Effective European Patent Prosection
for US Originating Cases |
| |
|
The talk will discuss issues arising in Europe from
commonly taken approaches to patent drafting and early prosecution
in the US, including US provisionals. Potential problems in areas
such as priority entitlement, applicant disclosure, clarity, claim
language and form will be covered, with a view to smoothing the
prosecution of cases and avoiding pitfalls which impact on the validity
of cases. |
| |
|
Neil
Pawlyn
Urquhart-Dykes & Lord
Leeds, England |
| 11:40 |
Litigation before the Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board |
| |
|
The U.S. adherence to the Madrid Protocol is expected
to increase the number of trademark applications filed, and the
number of ex parte appeals, oppositions and cancellation proceedings
heard by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. This presentation
will focus on recent developments embodied in Federal Circuit and
TTAB decisions, dilution and other grounds for filing opposition
and cancellation proceedings, concurrent use issues, and procedural
pitfalls that arise in litigation before the TTAB. |
| |
|
Michael
A. Grow
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
Washington, D.C. |
| 12:20 |
Lunch |
| 1:20 |
Overview of 2003 Decisions from
the Federal Circuit |
| |
|
This presentation will cover the most important patent
cases form the Federal Circuit in 2003. |
| |
|
Don
W. Martens
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
Irvine, California |
| 2:00 |
Inventorship |
| |
|
Improper inventorship may be grounds for a defense
of patent invalidity or even inequitable conduct. And an omitted
inventor enjoys a presumption of ownership in the entire patent,
even if the contribution is limited to a single claim. This talks
prvides a framework for determining inventorship in an age of increasing
involvement of many scientists in a single research goal. |
| |
|
Jean
B. Fordis
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, L.L. P.
Palo Alto, California |
| 2:40 |
Overview of Interference Law |
| |
|
Basic principles of interference law and practice
will be discussed, including the prerequisites for an interference,
the definition of interfering subject matter, conception, reduction
to practice, diligence, corroboration, determining priority, and
patentability considerations. A brief procedural overview will also
be presented. |
| |
|
Jerry
D. Voight
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
Palo Alto, California |
| 3:20 |
Afternoon Break - Sponsored by
Brinks Hofer Gilson &
Lione |
| 3:40 |
Non-infringement opinions in
light of the en banc reconsideration of Knoff-Bremse Sys. v. Dana.
Copr. |
| |
|
For its en banc rehearing of Knoff Bremse Sys.
v. Dana Corp., the Federal Circuit has requested briefs directed
to whether adverse inference with respect to willful infringement
can be drawn based on invocation of the attorney-client privilege
and/or work product privilege or the failure to obtain legal advice.
The Federal Circuit also requested that the briefs address whether
the existence of a substantial defense to infringement is sufficient
to defeat liability for willful infringement even if no legal
advice has been secured. The panel will explore these issues and
the positions being taken such as the argument in the AIPLA's
amicus curiae brief that "[t]he duty to obtain legal advice
before engaging in activity that may result in infringement should
be abolished."
Panel Moderator:
Kenneth S. Barrow
Tympany, Inc.
Stafford, Texas
Panelists:
Brad H. Bearnson
Icon Health & Fitness,
Inc.
Logan, Utah
Matthew Grumbling
Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Carlsbad, California
W. David Westergard
Micron Technology, Inc.
Boise, Idaho
|
| 4:20 |
Injunctive Relief Strategies
for IP Matters |
| |
|
This panel will discuss strategy and tactics involved
in seeking and opposing preliminary injunctive relief in IP cases.
Subjects that will be covered include: factors in deciding whether
to seek injunctive relief, choice of forum, strategy and tactics
for the moving party in meeting its legal burden, strategy and
tactics for the opposing party in defeating a preliminary injunction
motion, discovery practice in injunction cases and preparing for
and presenting argument and evidence in a preliminary injunction
hearing.
Panel Moderator:
Jonathan
M. James
Perkins Coie, LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
Panelists:
Arthur
B. Berger
Ray Quinney & Nebeker
Salt Lake City, Utah
H.
Dickson Burton
TraskBritt
Salt Lake City, Utah
Gregory
M. Hess
Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless
Salt Lake City, Utah
David
G. Mangum
Parsons Behle & Latimer
Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| 5:00 |
Adjourn |
