patent litigation

Event Details:                                                                                                                                                           printer-friendly page

2009 ushered in several interesting cases which indicate a significant shift in the thinking of the courts regarding patent infringement damages, and specifically, the entire market value rule. Damages awards have been reduced, reversed, or questioned on appeal. Going forward, the recent rulings may affect the desirability of evidence related to whether/how much the allegedly infringed patented feature drives demand and/or to its frequency of use by customers. The new atmosphere in IP litigation may also affect the valuation of patents for M&A and licensing purposes. Attorneys need to be in the know with respect to this hot topic in order to properly advise their clients.

The Knowledge Group is assembling a panel of key thought leaders and industry experts in a 2-hour live webcast to provide their insights on what you need to know about these developments in patent litigation. The audience will have the chance to ask questions and interact with the speakers, live. Click the register button below to gain access to this timely and informative webcast. Discounts are available to early registrants.

Course Level: Intermediate
Prerequisite: None
Method Of Presentation: Group-Based-Internet
Developer: The Knowledge Group, LLC
Recommended CLE/CPE Hours: 1.75 - 2.0
Important Note: Your State Bar or Accounting Board will make the final determination with respect to continuing education credit. If you are applying for CLE credit in Texas you must register 20 days before the event date or you will not be able to obtain CLE credit.
Advance Preparation: Print and review course materials
Course Code: 103983
Recording Fee: $299 (Please click here for details)
NASBA Sponsor Number: 109004

 

Featured Speakers for Recent Developments in Patent Infringement Damage Awards LIVE Webcast:


Proposed Agenda (click here to view more)
SEGMENT 1:


Sarah Chapin Columbia, Partner, Head Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP

** Speaker Talking Points to be added soon.. **

SEGMENT 2:


Cynthia Lopez Beverage , Of Counsel,
Morrison & Foerster LLP

-The "compromise" patent reform bill introduced on 2/25/2010 by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) mirrors   the CAFC's Cornell, Lucent and Lansa decisions which place the obligation upon a trial court judge   to act as the "gatekeeper" who must closely scrutinize the evidentiary and economic bases of a   reasonable royalty in the setting of the appropriate royalty base, the application of the EMVR, and the   calculation of the appropriate royalty rate.
-In determining the sufficiency of the evidence upon which an expert witness's reasonable royalty   theory relies, the trial court judge must now approach and apply the Georgia-Pacific factors more   carefully with the goal of requiring "real world" uniformity and connection between the patent or   patented invention and both market forces and market comparables.
-If the accused product is a separable multi-component product and the patent covers only one   component therein, it is more likely that the proper royalty base for a patented invention will be the   smallest saleable patent practice unit that contains the claimed invention rather than the entire   market value of the multi-component product.

SEGMENT 3:


Mark P. Wine , Partner,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

1. Do the i4i, Cornell and Lucent cases indicate a change in how patent litigators should select and
    present expert damages testimony at trial?
2. Do these cases impact how we should work with experts before trial?
3. How do this cases and other recent trial court decisions impact the relative emphasis on
    reasonable royalty damages vs. lost profits damages at trial?
4. Do these cases tell us anything about the strategic use of pre-trial (e.g. Daubert) or trial (JMOL)
    motions?
5. In light of all the damages cases that have come down over the past 2 years, is the 25% rule still
    worth referring to?

SEGMENT 4:


Dr. Elizabeth Bailey , Vice President,
NERA Economic Consulting


1. Several common themes related to patent infringement damages emerge from three recent CAFC     decisions which have general applicability to matters involving patent damages.
2. The economic approach to calculating reasonable royalty damages does not depend on whether      the patented technology is a large or small component of the overall product.
3. It is not economically sensible to determine the royalty base and royalty rate independently of one     another because a mismatched rate and base can lead to an unreasonable dollar amount of     royalties.
4. Non-economic approaches to calculating reasonable royalties, such as the use of      non-comparable benchmarks and the so-called 25% rule, are unreliable because they are not     based on factual support for the patent’s use in the specific cases at hand.



McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Sarah Chapin Columbia
Partner, Head Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group
speaker bio »»

Morrison & Foerster LLP
Cynthia Lopez Beverage
Of Counsel
speaker bio »»

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Mark P. Wine
Partner
speaker bio »»

NERA Economic Consulting
Dr. Elizabeth Bailey
Vice President
speaker bio »»

Who Should Attend?

- Patent Litigators
- In-House Counsel for Firms that own or License Patents
- Patent Licensing Attorneys

Why Attend?

This is a must attend event to fully understand the important issues surrounding Recent Developments in Patent Infringement Damage Awards.
    - Detailed guidance explained by the most qualified key leaders & experts
    - Hear directly from key regulators & thought leaders
    - Interact directly with panel during Q&A

Registration Information:                                                                                                                                    


** Discounts Apply for early registration

Disclaimer:
Please note, the event date is firm although it may be subject to change. Please click here for details.

 

 

 

 


Recent Developments in Patent Infringement Damage Awards
LIVE Webcast
Speaker Firms:





Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP







 

The Knowledge Group, LLC is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700, Nashville, TN, 37219-2417. Website: www.nasba.org


 

We are an approved multi-event sponsor in the state of California. Our provider ID is: 14451. In Texas, Illinois, and Virginia, we submit programs for individual approval in advance. In all other states, once attendance is verified, participants are emailed an official certificate of attendance which they submit to their respective State Bar Associations. Our programs are created with continuing education in mind and are therefore designed to meet the requirements of all State Bar Associations. If you have any questions, please email our CLE coordinator at: info@knowledgecongress.org

Important Note: Your State Bar or Accounting Board will make the final determination with respect to continuing education credit. If you are applying for CLE credit in Texas you must register 20 days before the event date or you will not be able to obtain CLE credit.

Attention New York Attorneys:

This program is approved for CLE credit under New York’s Approved Jurisdiction policy. The Knowledge Group, LLC is an approved sponsor in the state of California, a New York Approved Jurisdiction. This program fulfills the non-traditional format requirement of exceeding 60 minutes in length. Please note only experienced attorneys (more than 2 years) are eligible to receive CLE credit via non-traditional format learning platforms. The Knowledge Group will verify attendance during the webcast via secret words (3 per credit hour) and by auditing attendees log in and log out records. All verification instructions will be provided during the webcast. Once attendance verification requirements have been completed, the attendee will be issued a certificate of attendance be The Knowledge Group for the course with the recommended number of credit hours. The Certificate of Attendance is normally sent via email in 24 hours or less.

To Claim Your CLE Credits:

The attorney should simply include credits earned via Knowledge Group webcasts when computing the total number of CLE credits completed, and keep the Knowledge Group Certificate of Attendance for a period of at least four (4) years in case of audit. An attorney may count towards her/his New York CLE requirement credit earned through the Approved Jurisdiction policy without notifying the CLE Board.

To learn more about New York’s Approved Jurisdiction policy. Please visit: http://www.nycourts.gov/attorneys/cle/approvedjurisdictions.shtml



 
Enrolled Agents Sponsor ID Number: 760

We have entered into an agreement with the Office of Professional Responsibility, Internal Revenue Service, to meet the requirements of 31 Code of Federal Regulations, section 10.6(g), covering maintenance of attendance records, retention of program outlines, qualifications of instructors, and length of class hours. This agreement does not constitute an endorsement by the Office of Professional Responsibility as to the quality of the program or its contribution to the professional competence of the enrolled individual.