|
|
 |
|
Viewing report
|
|
|
|
The Status of False Patent Marking Law & How IP Lawyers Should Advise Their Clients to Avoid Problems
ExecSense, June 2011, Minutes: 60
In The Status of False Patent Marking Law & How IP Lawyers Should Advise Their Clients to Avoid Problems, ExecSense covers everything that intellectual property lawyers need to know about the most recent legal developments with respect to false marking claims. Take the 60 minutes to view this webinar (on your computer, mobile phone, iPad, Kindle or printed out) to understand how the most recent case law has impacted the ability of false marking plaintiffs to bring suits under 35 U.S.C. § 292, and how IP lawyers should be advising their clients who are bringing or defending against false marking suits.
Upon ordering, ExecSense will email you a link to download the webinar files for viewing on your computer, mobile phone, iPod, iPad, Kindle or printed out. The downloaded files will include the PowerPoint presentation, audio narration and jpeg images of the slides (for watching on your mobile media device). Take advantage of your next commute, flight, business trip, lunch, or free hour in your schedule to view this webinar.
The webinar is led by an expert on false marking patent law, Ronald Wynn & Stephen Peck, Partner, Hanson Bridgett LLP, and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the most recent legal developments with respect to false marking claims
- A comprehensive overview of the most recent case law that has impacted the ability of false marking plaintiffs to bring suits under 35 U.S.C. § 292, including In re BP Lubricants (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2011) (ruling that the allegations of intent to deceive the public necessary to support a false marking claim must be pled with the high level of particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (affirming dismissal the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of false marking complaint for failure to state a claim because the amended complaint did not reasonably allege the marking of an “unpatented article” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 292)
- Perspective on how IP lawyers should be advising their clients who are either bringing or defending against false marking suits in light of these legal developments
- The 10 questions most commonly asked by IP lawyers about how their clients will be impacted by recent developments in false marking law
- Case studies of what other IP lawyers are doing to prepare their clients who are bringing or defending false marking claims, how have their clients been impacted from a legal perspective by the recent case law, and important lessons learned that you and your clients need to know about
Praise for ExecSense Webinars:
'An expeditious way to obtain authoritative current information and ideas on a subject of interest.' – David Kera, Partner, Oblon Spivak
'Just in time information to improve knowledge of current topics and trends.” – Thomas M. Armstrong, Attorney, Reid and Riege
“Well organized, well articulated, and easy to follow. The ExecSense webinar I attended was the best virtual learning experience I've had in quite some time.” – Brian K. Moore, HR Communications, Humana
|
|
|
|
