2017年10月2日Seminar

Seminar information–Closed

Introduction of significant precedents of new patents in the U.S.

Lawyers Robert Gaybrick and Saneo Morishita from Morgan Lewis Law Office in Washington D.C., U.S.A., will visit our office to hold a seminar. They both have very interesting themes, and will be addressed to a small audience so that the question-and-answer session should be quite thorough.
We understand everyone must be busy but we hope many will attend since this is a rare opportunity. Please apply ASAP since the number of participants is limited.
Applicants are kindly requested to specify their company names and participants’ names.

Details

Date: Oct. 27, 2018(Fri), 9:30~11:30 AM(approx. 2 hours is expected)
Lecturers: Lawyers Mr. Robert Gaybrick and Mr. Saneo Morishita
(Morgan Lewis Law Office in Washington D.C., U.S.A.)
Venue: Conference Room C at our office
No. of Participants: Around 10 persons
Fee: Free
Language: Mr. Morishita will speak in Japanese, and Mr. Gaybrick will speak in English. Mr. Morishita will provide summaries and explanation for the English as required.


Theme 1: “Observations regarding the impact of the TC Heartland Supreme Court Precedent”


The U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the TC Heartland case might effectually limit the court in which the plaintiff could bring to an action, and is said to maybe cause difficulties to exercise patent rights in the U.S.
However, the authority regarding Venue(the court) which is the issue in question here continues to be entrusted to the federal district court judges. Thus, after the TC Heartland precedent, diverse judgements are being made at every district court.
In this seminar, Venue related decisions after TC Heartland shall be investigated and analyzed, and lawsuit strategies and countermeasures for patent rights holders in the future shall be explained in detail.


Theme 2: “The 10 Selected Significant Precedents of Intellectual Property Cases in the U.S. in 2016~2017”


Ten significant precedents reported in succession by the U.S. Supreme Court and CAFC from last year into this year shall be summarized in brief.

  • Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. (Supreme Court):Patent Exhaustion
  • SCA Hygiene v first Quality (Supreme Court): Laches
  • The Medicines Company v Hospira (CAFC): On Sales Bar
  • Water Splash v Menon (Supreme Court): Service through Hague Convention
  • Lee v. Tam (Supreme Court): Disparaging Trademarks
  • In re Queen‘s University at Kingston (CAFC): Patent Agent Privilege
  • Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega (Supreme Court): Substantial Portion Test
  • In re Van Os (CAFC): Obviousness
  • Poly-America, L.P, v API Industries, Inc. (CAFC): Claim Scope Disavowal
  • In re Aqua Products, Inc. (CAFC): Claim Amendment in IPR

Application form

Name
Phonetic
Company or Organization name
Department
TEL.
E-mail
E-mail(confirm)
Message