Meeting Section 112 Disclosure Obligations After Ariad v. Lilly

A live 90-minute CLE webinar/teleconference with interactive Q&A
Sponsored by the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications
Thursday, June 10, 2010 ~ 1:00pm-2:30pm EDT
Price: $297

Please note: You will be taken to the Strafford website to complete your order.

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patentees, patent challengers and counsel for dealing with the U.S. Patent Law Section 112′s written description requirement. The panel will also discuss the implications of the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Ariad v. Eli Lilly for compliance and patent challenges.

Description

Patent applicants must provide a written description of the invention in the patent application process. The requirement mandates that applicants provide greater detail about what an invention does, which may effectively reduce the scope of patent protection.

In March 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Ariad Pharm. v. Eli Lilly, confirming that 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, para. 1 contains a written description requirement that must be satisfied by a patent applicant separately from the enablement requirement.

The ruling clarified the written description requirement’s purpose and scope as requiring patentees to make meaningful disclosure of the invention. It may also give defendants firepower when parties seek to assert patents where broad claims are not supported by sufficient disclosures.

Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines the written description requirement and how it has been applied. The panel will discuss implications of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Ariad v. Lilly and offer best practices for meeting the written description requirement and withstanding invalidity challenges.

Outline

• Written description requirement
  • Purpose and scope
  • What is required by Section 112
  • Application of the requirement
• Ariad v. Lilly
  • Federal Circuit’s ruling
  • Dissents by Judges Rader and Linn
  • Implications of the decision
    • on patent prosecution
    • for predictable arts
    • for non-predictable arts
    • for the written description
    • on patent litigation
• Best practices to meet the written description requirement

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

• What are the implications of Ariad for the predictable and non-predictable arts?
• How will Ariad impact patent prosecution?
• What steps can patentees and counsel take to meet the written description requirement and withstand invalidity challenges based on the written description?

Following the speaker presentations, you’ll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions during the interactive Q&A.

Faculty

Peter G. Pappas, Partner
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta
He concentrates primarily in chemical patent prosecution and handles mechanical patent prosecution, federal trademark prosecution, licensing and other intellectual property transactions, validity and infringement opinions, and litigation support. He has substantial experience in prosecuting patents for packaged beverage manufacturing, polymeric nonwoven products and manufacturing equipment.

Annemarie Hassett, Partner
Goodwin Procter, New York
She is a member of the firm’s patent litigation practice and focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation, with particular expertise in patent infringement and trade secret disputes. She also practices in the area of white collar criminal defense.

Register Today!
Price covers an unlimited number of staff at your office location. Can’t participate in the live seminar? A CD of the full event proceedings, including Q&A and PDF files of all handouts, will be available 10 days after the seminar.

Continuing Legal Education
Continuing Legal Education credits are granted for an additional $65 per person. Please refer to the options on the order page to take advantage of these credits.

Please note: You will be taken to the
Strafford website to complete your order.