|
Publications
-
10.2017Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Fifth Anniversary Report
IPR@5
An In-Depth Look at Factors Affecting Your IPR Strategy
Fifth anniversaries are milestone occasions. Following our prior reports marking the passage of three and four years of inter partes review practice, we proudly offer this year’s report, Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Fifth Anniversary Report. -
11.21.2016District Court Stays: A Review of the Past 12 MonthsArticlesThe overall granting of stays pending IPR and CBM in the past year has remained identical to the first three years overall contested requests to stay were granted. But the overall success rate for contested requests to stay filed after institution jumped from 70% to 75%.
-
09.2016Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Fourth Anniversary Report
IPR@4
An In-Depth Look at Factors Affecting Your IPR Strategy
Perkins Coie is marking the fourth anniversary of inter partes review (IPR) with a report focused on the changes and progress of IPR proceedings, particularly since September 2015. As IPR proceedings have become more familiar during the past four years, growing clarity on many issues has resulted from decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to read the full report.
-
07.2015Chasing the White Rabbit: Business Method Patents and the Continued Search for Clarity Under AliceArticlesIn 2014, the question of whether business method and software patents constitute patentable subject matter climaxed with the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Consistent with its prior ruling in Bilski, the Court affirmed that the asserted patent claims were unpatentable.
-
08.2013Experts in Patent Cases: Getting the Most Out of Your Star WitnessArticlesIn patent cases, as one respected district court judge noted, “experts and lawyers end up playing the starring roles.” Illumina, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. 09-C-277-bbc, 2009 WL 3062786, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 21, 2009). Furthermore, “granting the status of expert cloaks [that witness] with some indicia of authority before the jury.” Read the full article.
-
06.15.2010Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company: Federal Circuit Holds That False Marking Statute Applies to Marking With Expired Patents, But Affirms Summary Judgment That Manufacturer Lacked Intent to Deceive the PublicUpdatesThe Federal Circuit held in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No. 2009-1547 (June 10, 2010), that the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, applies to products marked with expired patents, although the presumption of intent to deceive the public is weaker in such cases than in cases involving marking with patents that never covered the product.
Presentations
-
07.21.2017Getting Ahead: Tips for Reaching the Top in Public Sector, Law Firms, and CorporationsSpeaking EngagementsHyatt Regency / Boston, MA
A panel discussion at ACI 4th Annual Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law -
10.08.2015Patent Litigation 2015Speaking EngagementsPLI's Patent Litigation 2015 / Chicago, IL
-
10.06.2014 - 10.07.2014Patent Litigation 2014Speaking EngagementsUniversity of Chicago Gleacher Center / Chicago, IL 60611
-
05.01.2014Patent Litigation Defense: Strategies for Corporate CounselSeminarsPresented by the Patent Litigation and Prosecution Practices of Perkins Coie LLP
