variety of industries and private practitioners attend this event for worthwhile benchmarking and networking with the “who’s who” of the 337 bar, including senior decision-makers from the ITC, companies and practitioners involved in some of the most high profile cases to date.
A presentation discussing interplay with Patent Office proceedings, use of the pilot program, updates on domestic industry, and the latest on public interest. They also discussed best practices in preparing for ITC litigation.
Attorneys Sheila Swaroop and Jonathan Bachand hosted a webinar presenting Intellectual Property Enforcement at the International Trade Commission Confirmation.
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
Alexandra Yang of Fangda Partners examines the differences and similarities between IPRs in the U.S. and invalidation proceedings before the CNIPA to give U.S. practitioners and clients a clear picture of the patent invalidation proceedings in China.
In this month's episode, we’re talking about the use of government grants and the strings that can come attached to your IP! We’re exploring the various types of small business research grants, how the Bayh-Dole Act regulates inventions generated under government grants, licensing and ownership implications for your patent when using federal dollars, and the sticky webs that you may find yourself in if you are not carefully tracking IP and adhering to the numerous provisions and timelines.
Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy here at Aurora, leads the discussion along with our all-star patent panel, exploring:
⦿ How the Bye-Dole Act of 1980 regulates inventions under government grants
⦿ As a small business, what types of grants are available to you and whether or not they can cover IP-related costs
⦿ The rights of the federal government to your Invention when you use grant money
⦿ Implications for using subcontractors to perform the work under the grant
⦿ And of course, some of the biggest gotcha’s and practical tips for avoiding them
Ashley is also joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategy Specialist at Aurora
⦿ Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
⦿ Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate at Aurora
** Mossoff Minute **
This month's Mossoff Minute, featuring Professor Adam Mossoff, looks at the introduction of a very important piece of patent reform legislation called the PREVAIL Act.
** Follow Aurora Patents **
⦿ Home: https://www.aurorapatents.com/
⦿ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuroraPatents
⦿ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aurora-cg/
⦿ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aurorapatents
⦿ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aurorapatents/
⦿ Listen https://www.aurorapatents.com/patently-strategic-podcast.html:
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Financial Poise
This segment will delve into considerations that come into play when filing or responding to post-grant review proceedings. These considerations include issues of real party in interest, timing, and substantive arguments.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/things-to-consider-before-you-file-2020/
variety of industries and private practitioners attend this event for worthwhile benchmarking and networking with the “who’s who” of the 337 bar, including senior decision-makers from the ITC, companies and practitioners involved in some of the most high profile cases to date.
A presentation discussing interplay with Patent Office proceedings, use of the pilot program, updates on domestic industry, and the latest on public interest. They also discussed best practices in preparing for ITC litigation.
Attorneys Sheila Swaroop and Jonathan Bachand hosted a webinar presenting Intellectual Property Enforcement at the International Trade Commission Confirmation.
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
Alexandra Yang of Fangda Partners examines the differences and similarities between IPRs in the U.S. and invalidation proceedings before the CNIPA to give U.S. practitioners and clients a clear picture of the patent invalidation proceedings in China.
In this month's episode, we’re talking about the use of government grants and the strings that can come attached to your IP! We’re exploring the various types of small business research grants, how the Bayh-Dole Act regulates inventions generated under government grants, licensing and ownership implications for your patent when using federal dollars, and the sticky webs that you may find yourself in if you are not carefully tracking IP and adhering to the numerous provisions and timelines.
Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy here at Aurora, leads the discussion along with our all-star patent panel, exploring:
⦿ How the Bye-Dole Act of 1980 regulates inventions under government grants
⦿ As a small business, what types of grants are available to you and whether or not they can cover IP-related costs
⦿ The rights of the federal government to your Invention when you use grant money
⦿ Implications for using subcontractors to perform the work under the grant
⦿ And of course, some of the biggest gotcha’s and practical tips for avoiding them
Ashley is also joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategy Specialist at Aurora
⦿ Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting
⦿ Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate at Aurora
** Mossoff Minute **
This month's Mossoff Minute, featuring Professor Adam Mossoff, looks at the introduction of a very important piece of patent reform legislation called the PREVAIL Act.
** Follow Aurora Patents **
⦿ Home: https://www.aurorapatents.com/
⦿ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuroraPatents
⦿ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aurora-cg/
⦿ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aurorapatents/
⦿ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aurorapatents
⦿ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aurorapatents/
⦿ Listen https://www.aurorapatents.com/patently-strategic-podcast.html:
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Financial Poise
This segment will delve into considerations that come into play when filing or responding to post-grant review proceedings. These considerations include issues of real party in interest, timing, and substantive arguments.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/things-to-consider-before-you-file-2020/
Presentation before the International Intellectual Property Society
Conrad Wong
Attorney-Advisor, China Team
Office of Policy and International Affairs
United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO
May 16, 2019
ECON 339, January 2017 Assignment 2 Economics 339 (A01),.docxSALU18
ECON 339, January 2017
Assignment 2
Economics 339 (A01), CRN 20951
Assignment 2
L. Welling Due: March 9, 2017
February 27, 2017 Total value: 40 marks
Notes:
1. Assignment is due by the beginning of class on March 9
th
. It may be
submitted in class, or dropped into the assignment box for 339 by that
time. Students are encouraged to work together on assignments, but must
write up answers individually.
2. Please use at least one-half page for any diagram required. Marks will be
deducted if diagrams are not labeled and explained.
3. Show all calculations.
1. (10 marks) Recall the diagram for question 2 from the recent midterm. On the
midterm you considered an increase in the market wage, all else equal. For this
question, suppose that the market wage decreased. Starting with the initial
optimal choice of (L, C+G) at point B, redo part (e).
2. (15 marks) Consider the household head model from class. Assume that
individual A is the altruistic household head, with a utility function defined over
A’s own consumption, denoted by ,
A
x and individual B’s consumption, denoted
by :
B
x
, ln lnA B A BU x x x x
where is the altruism parameter.
a) (1) What does the “altruism parameter” measure?
Let A’s initial annual income be $70,000, and B’s initial annual income be
$30,000. The unit price of private consumption is $1.00
b) (1) What is total household income?
c) (5) In a diagram with B’s consumption on the vertical axis, sketch the
household budget constraint. What is the slope of the budget line? How do you
know this?
d) (1) Identify the point on the budget constraint where each individual has
consumption equal to their own income; label this bundle C.
ECON 339, January 2017
Assignment 2
Suppose that 2 / 3 . With this utility function, it can be shown that the
household head will always choose to allocate income such that individual B’s
consumption is equal to 0.4 of total household income.
e) (1) Given the initial incomes of the two individuals, label the
consumption bundle chosen by the household head as D on your diagram in (c).
f) (2) Does individual B prefer their consumption at point D, or
consumption equal to their own income? Briefly explain how you determined this.
Suppose now that the household must decide to take one of the following two
options:
i) Individual B increases market work so that B’s annual income increases
to $40,000, while individual A’s income is unchanged;
ii) individual B decreases market work so B’s annual income decreases to
$20,000; this will free up time for individual A to increase market work and earn a
new annual income equal to $100,000.
f) (2) In a new diagram, sketch the household budget lines for these two
options, and identify the consumption bundles chosen by t ...
Presentation by Sean Ennis, Senior Economist, OECD Competition Division, at the II Competition and Regulation Forum: “Reaching for market efficiency” which took place in Mexico on 9-10 January 2018. Further information is available at www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/.
This presentation by Ryan Struve, US DOJ, was made during the panel IV “How to Structure Remedies in Abuses of Dominance in Digital Markets” held at the OECD/AGCM Workshop on Abuse of Dominance in Digital Markets on 10-11 October 2019. More information on this event can be found at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/oecd-agcm-workshop-on-abuse-of-dominance-in-digital-markets.htm
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - Things to Consider Before You FileFinancial Poise
This segment will delve into considerations that come into play when filing or responding to post-grant review proceedings. These considerations include issues of real party in interest, timing, and substantive arguments.
Part of the webinar series: IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
IP-301: Post-Grant Review Trials 2020 - Interplay With District Court LitigationFinancial Poise
This segment, though last, is arguably the most important. It will discuss issues that come into being as a result of co-pending proceedings with U.S. district court litigation. These issues include estoppel, claim construction, and validity determinations.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/interplay-with-district-court-litigation-2020/
What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”Michael-Paul James
Presentation by Michael-Paul James on What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery” by Joan Farre-Mensa, Deepak Hegde, Alexander Ljungqvist.
PGRT Basics (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2020)Financial Poise
This segment will discuss the statutory and procedural background of post-grant review proceedings. It will discuss the types of proceedings available and provide a high-level discussion of how the proceedings are conducted.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/pgrt-basics-2020/
Here are presented best practices for executives and in-house counsel to organize the processes within a small company to build a maximally valuable patent portfolio within budget and time constraints.
Presentation delivered during 9th Seminar on Media and the Digital Economy (21-22 March 2019).
http://fsr.eui.eu/event/annual-scientific-seminar-on-media-and-the-digital-economy-9th-edition/
Recent developments have increased the authority and discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in patent validity disputes. Join the co-chairs of our PTAB Litigation practice group for a practical discussion of how patent owners and petitioners can take advantage of these developments to increase success at the PTAB. Topics will include:
· The standard for proving that printed publications are prior art;
· The PTAB's increasing discretion to institute or deny petitions; and
· Significant Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions
Knobbe Martens co-hosted a 2-hour seminar in Orange County on Protecting Your Intellectual Property with a distinguished panel of global patent practitioners.
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
More Related Content
Similar to Trending Topics in ITC Litigation with Knobbe Martens
Presentation before the International Intellectual Property Society
Conrad Wong
Attorney-Advisor, China Team
Office of Policy and International Affairs
United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO
May 16, 2019
ECON 339, January 2017 Assignment 2 Economics 339 (A01),.docxSALU18
ECON 339, January 2017
Assignment 2
Economics 339 (A01), CRN 20951
Assignment 2
L. Welling Due: March 9, 2017
February 27, 2017 Total value: 40 marks
Notes:
1. Assignment is due by the beginning of class on March 9
th
. It may be
submitted in class, or dropped into the assignment box for 339 by that
time. Students are encouraged to work together on assignments, but must
write up answers individually.
2. Please use at least one-half page for any diagram required. Marks will be
deducted if diagrams are not labeled and explained.
3. Show all calculations.
1. (10 marks) Recall the diagram for question 2 from the recent midterm. On the
midterm you considered an increase in the market wage, all else equal. For this
question, suppose that the market wage decreased. Starting with the initial
optimal choice of (L, C+G) at point B, redo part (e).
2. (15 marks) Consider the household head model from class. Assume that
individual A is the altruistic household head, with a utility function defined over
A’s own consumption, denoted by ,
A
x and individual B’s consumption, denoted
by :
B
x
, ln lnA B A BU x x x x
where is the altruism parameter.
a) (1) What does the “altruism parameter” measure?
Let A’s initial annual income be $70,000, and B’s initial annual income be
$30,000. The unit price of private consumption is $1.00
b) (1) What is total household income?
c) (5) In a diagram with B’s consumption on the vertical axis, sketch the
household budget constraint. What is the slope of the budget line? How do you
know this?
d) (1) Identify the point on the budget constraint where each individual has
consumption equal to their own income; label this bundle C.
ECON 339, January 2017
Assignment 2
Suppose that 2 / 3 . With this utility function, it can be shown that the
household head will always choose to allocate income such that individual B’s
consumption is equal to 0.4 of total household income.
e) (1) Given the initial incomes of the two individuals, label the
consumption bundle chosen by the household head as D on your diagram in (c).
f) (2) Does individual B prefer their consumption at point D, or
consumption equal to their own income? Briefly explain how you determined this.
Suppose now that the household must decide to take one of the following two
options:
i) Individual B increases market work so that B’s annual income increases
to $40,000, while individual A’s income is unchanged;
ii) individual B decreases market work so B’s annual income decreases to
$20,000; this will free up time for individual A to increase market work and earn a
new annual income equal to $100,000.
f) (2) In a new diagram, sketch the household budget lines for these two
options, and identify the consumption bundles chosen by t ...
Presentation by Sean Ennis, Senior Economist, OECD Competition Division, at the II Competition and Regulation Forum: “Reaching for market efficiency” which took place in Mexico on 9-10 January 2018. Further information is available at www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/.
This presentation by Ryan Struve, US DOJ, was made during the panel IV “How to Structure Remedies in Abuses of Dominance in Digital Markets” held at the OECD/AGCM Workshop on Abuse of Dominance in Digital Markets on 10-11 October 2019. More information on this event can be found at www.oecd.org/daf/competition/oecd-agcm-workshop-on-abuse-of-dominance-in-digital-markets.htm
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - Things to Consider Before You FileFinancial Poise
This segment will delve into considerations that come into play when filing or responding to post-grant review proceedings. These considerations include issues of real party in interest, timing, and substantive arguments.
Part of the webinar series: IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
IP-301: Post-Grant Review Trials 2020 - Interplay With District Court LitigationFinancial Poise
This segment, though last, is arguably the most important. It will discuss issues that come into being as a result of co-pending proceedings with U.S. district court litigation. These issues include estoppel, claim construction, and validity determinations.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/interplay-with-district-court-litigation-2020/
What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery”Michael-Paul James
Presentation by Michael-Paul James on What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent “Lottery” by Joan Farre-Mensa, Deepak Hegde, Alexander Ljungqvist.
PGRT Basics (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2020)Financial Poise
This segment will discuss the statutory and procedural background of post-grant review proceedings. It will discuss the types of proceedings available and provide a high-level discussion of how the proceedings are conducted.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/pgrt-basics-2020/
Here are presented best practices for executives and in-house counsel to organize the processes within a small company to build a maximally valuable patent portfolio within budget and time constraints.
Presentation delivered during 9th Seminar on Media and the Digital Economy (21-22 March 2019).
http://fsr.eui.eu/event/annual-scientific-seminar-on-media-and-the-digital-economy-9th-edition/
Recent developments have increased the authority and discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in patent validity disputes. Join the co-chairs of our PTAB Litigation practice group for a practical discussion of how patent owners and petitioners can take advantage of these developments to increase success at the PTAB. Topics will include:
· The standard for proving that printed publications are prior art;
· The PTAB's increasing discretion to institute or deny petitions; and
· Significant Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions
Knobbe Martens co-hosted a 2-hour seminar in Orange County on Protecting Your Intellectual Property with a distinguished panel of global patent practitioners.
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
Knobbe partners Jeff Van Hoosear (OC) Jason Jardine (SD) and associate Julia Hanson (SD) recently gave a presentation at San Diego Fashion week on intellectual property for designers and artists. The presentation explored what IP is, why it is important to designers, top 5 misconceptions, how to get a copyright, how to get a trademark and how to get a design patent.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Jason Gersting, Ph.D. moderated a panel of his peers in a discussion about learning how to identify the waves in current written description and enablement law and tips for smoothly riding them to expand, enhance and protect life sciences intellectual property rights. Panelists included Knobbe Martens partners Jessica Achtsam, Eric Furman, Ph.D., and Dan Altman.
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Lozan gave an informative presentation on design patent law in the United States. The partners provided best practices for filing and prosecuting design patents in the U.S. and techniques and strategies for including multiple design embodiments in design patent applications. They also discussed how to identify and protect visual elements in computer-related technologies and how to integrate design patents into a holistic intellectual property strategy.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Lozan
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellman continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic, diving into the best intellectual property portfolios and cost deferrable strategies to maximize intellectual property spend.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellmann
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Teplitskiy gave an informative presentation on strategic considerations for claim drafting electrical and telecommunications Inventions. The partners provided illustrative claim drafting examples and best practices for defining claim scope, as well as claim drafting strategies for avoiding or minimizing unintentional functional claiming.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Teplitskiy
Partners Maria Stout and Paul Stellman kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Maria Stout and Paul Stellmann
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of managing employment and vendor agreements, follow-on agreements, and sample language and practical examples.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Maria Stout kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic intellectual property considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. This presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Maria Stout
Knobbe Practice Japan Webinar Series
Partner Mauricio Uribe provided a detailed discussion focused on advanced patent claim drafting techniques for artificial intelligence technologies and related applications. The discussion covered: claim drafting techniques to capture different aspects of artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies; considerations for detecting infringement and possible alternative trade secret protection in the United States; and considerations for patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101.
This was the second and more advanced part of the webinar on understanding and protecting artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. If you missed the introductory webinar on this topic, you can view the recording here.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Kenny Masaki
Partners Paul Stellman and Jessica Achtsam continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic considerations regarding non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality policies. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of non-disclosure agreements and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Paul Stellman and Jessica Achtsam
More from Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law (20)
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
Trending Topics in ITC Litigation with Knobbe Martens
1. Trending Topics in
ITC Litigation
Presented by: Sheila Swaroop &
Jonathan Bachand
May 1, 2024
The content of this presentation is for educational purposes
only and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Knobbe Martens or its clients.
2. Trending Topics
2
Recent Trends in
Section 337 Litigation
Legislative Reform
First Use of the ITC’s
“Interim ID” Program
Domestic Industry
Update
Public Interest Update
Use of the ITC for
Claims Other Than
Patent Infringement
3. ITC Overview
• Administrative agency in Washington D.C.
• Six Commissioners – currently four
• Administrative Law Judges – currently six
• Office of Unfair Import Investigations
• Responsible for administration of U.S. trade laws, including Section 337
• Section 337 provides mechanism to prevent the unlawful importation
into the United States of articles
• Available remedies:
• Exclusion order to prevent the importation of articles into the
United States
• Cease-and-desist order directed to U.S. companies to prevent
sales of articles that have already entered
3
4. Recent Trends in Section 337 Litigation
4
FY2023 and FY
2024 filings
Most common
technology areas are
computer and
telecommunications
products and
consumer electronics
Declining rates
of settlement
Average length of
investigations
ranges from 17-19
months over the
past five years
Section 337 Statistics | United States
International Trade Commission
(usitc.gov)
5. Recent Efforts at
Legislative Reform
• Advancing America’s Interest Act
• Key provisions proposed
• Changes proof requirements for domestic
industry when relying on licensing
activities
• Requires affirmative determination that
exclusion is in the public interest
• Requires ITC to identify any dispositive
issues for 100-day determination
5
6. Use of the
Interim ID
Program
6
• Allows litigants to ask for early resolution
on a potentially case-dispositive or case-
limiting issue
• Domestic industry
• Standing
• Infringement and invalidity (including 101)
• Pilot program requests are not frequently
made or granted
IID “pilot program” started May
2021
• In re Certain Replacement Automotive
Lamps 1 & II, 337-TA-1291, 1292
First Use
7. Domestic Industry Update
• Analysis of “aggregated” domestic expenditures in 337-TA-1292 and 337-TA-1291
• Patentees each asserted 20 design patents directly to lamps for automobiles
• Patentees attempted to aggregate investments for different domestic products
that practiced different patents, instead of doing this analysis on a patent-by-
patent basis
• Commission found that this approach failed to establish economic prong of
domestic industry
7
8. Public Interest Update
• Philip Morris v. ITC, 63 F.4th 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
• Discusses the scope of the Commission’s obligations to consult with federal
agencies when issuing exclusion orders
• Commission publishes Federal Register notices, accepts submissions from
agencies, and considers evidence presented by the litigants
8