About the Practical IP for Natural Sciences Series
Please join us in a new webinar series directed to the practical strategies in a new era of patent law to protect IP in chemistry, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and genetic medicine.
The collision of new technologies and patent statutes of a by-gone era have led the Courts of the United States into new and uncharted territories. The Courts are wrestling to apply 1952 statutes to advances in computers, software, biotechnology and genetic medicine, and the fall-out has spread across all technologies. “New” judge-made law has been spawned from “old” established principles. Chemical patent law is no longer cut and dried. Biology has morphed into biotechnology with exciting medical/genetic advances that are denied patent protection by recent judge-made law. Even claims to polymer technology are not immune from the judges’ arm wrestling opinions.
In this complimentary webinar series, the Schwegman bio/chem legal team will provide practical tips to companies and universities looking for an understanding of this legal maze. We will explore and discuss current views of the law as applied to real situations, point out claim language that was acceptable in the past but now is not, and will suggest possible workarounds. We will apply the “new rules” to prosecution, opinion practice and defending and asserting patents in IPR. Each of the webinars are 30 minutes in length followed by a collaborative Q&A session with the presenter(s).
Register for Upcoming Webinars
Who would not want to fast-track prosecution? How should costs versus benefit be balanced? What do you lose by fast tracking?
Within the last few years, the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have handed down decisions that altered the landscape of both patent prosecution and enforcement, ranging from venue and attorneys’ fees to the standards for obviousness and patent eligibility. Warren Woessner, a founding shareholder and an expert witness on patent law, will take a look back at the most important IP decisions of 2017-2018 and evaluate their effect on practice in the life sciences arena.
Have recent Supreme Court and Fed Circuit decisions replaced the Halo over the need for competent opinions of non-infringement or invalidity? Do you waste time, money and effort by obtaining such an opinion before launching a commercial effort designed to compete with a patented product?
Does competitive surveillance mean hiring a “James Bond” private eye or when you do, do you get a Maxwell Smart? What legal avenues are available for surveillance of competitors? What about not-so-legal avenues?
Are Biosimilars fast becoming the same as pharmaceutical generics; lowest cost and lowest price wins? Is there really a benefit to copying a sponsor’s biological product or are there other ways to fast track FDA approval of your competitive biological product without the need to engage in the Biosimilar dance?