The Intellectual Property Practice Area Committee includes a group of law firms and attorneys having a focus on all aspects of intellectual property law. The IP Practice Area Committee was organized to foster collaboration with its members, and to provide a resource to other non-IP NAMWOLF attorneys and law firms as well as a resource for corporate counsel desiring opportunities to work with NAMWOLF firms on IP-related matters. The IP Practice Area Committee’s member firms have significant experience in all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, unfair competition, data rights, computer/internet/privacy law, and other IP-related areas including prosecution, litigation, licensing, and transactional matters. The IP Practice Area Committee strives to facilitate opportunities for corporate entities and NAMWOLF member firms to develop mutually beneficial partnerships to advance the goals of all parties. Furthermore, the IP Practice Area Committee provides continuing legal education (CLE) programs, organizes corporate on-site meetings, and works on policy and other initiatives to further advance NAMWOLF’s goals and to help establish practical relationships and engagements with corporate counsel and within the IP bar as a whole.
(The PAC Member Forms button will take you to the page where IP PAC members can go to submit their firm information and upload their One-Page Firm Profiles for Inclusion in PAC marketing materials)
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 from 3:00pm – 3:15pm EST, please join the NAMWOLF Intellectual Property Practice Area Committee for the January 2021 “Hot Topics” presentation. “Hot Topics” is intended to be a fifteen-minute discussion on a topic of interest and will serve as an introduction to the IP PAC and its attorneys.
This month, Anna Brook and Larry Kass of Culhane Meadows PLLC will be delivering a “Hot Topic” presentation addressing recent precedential decisions by the PTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that provide guidance on whether the PTAB will institute an inter partes review (IPR) when a parallel district court litigation is already well underway.
In May 2020, the PTAB issued a precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, laying out six factors that it would apply in deciding whether to institute in such situations. On December 17, the PTAB made precedential two recent cases applying Fintiv: Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, No. IPR2020-01019, and Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC, No. IPR2020-00820. In each decision, applying the six Fintiv factors led the PTAB to institute the IPRs. Time permitting, Anna and Larry will also address factors that district courts have been applying to decide whether to stay litigation pending an IPR.
Our monthly PAC call will immediately follow the 15-minute presentation.
Please contact Renecca Allen (firstname.lastname@example.org) to join.