Fitch Even News Feedhttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=39&format=xml&stylesheet=rss&directive=0&records=20en-us25 Sep 2021 00:00:00 -0800firmwisehttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssFitch Even Again Ranked Among Top Firms in IPR Practicehttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118924&format=xml<p>Fitch Even was recently recognized as being among the top 100 best-performing law firms nationwide in <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) proceedings in Patexia&rsquo;s 2021 IPR Intelligence Report. Fitch Even was also ranked among the top 50 most-active law firms representing patent owners. In addition, Fitch Even partner <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2611&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Nicholas T. Peters</a> was ranked among the top 50 most-active attorneys representing patent owners in IPR proceedings, and partners <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2601&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Timothy P. Maloney</a> and <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2585&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">David A. Gosse</a> were ranked among the top 100 most-active attorneys representing patent owners.</p> <p>Using data from over 7,500 IPR challenges filed from July 2016 through June 2021, Patexia evaluated the performance of more than 900 law firms and over 5,000 attorneys. More information about this annual report and its methodology can be found <a href="https://www.patexia.com/pressrelease/view/id/42">here</a>.</p> <p>Fitch Even has represented both patent owners and petitioners in a wide variety of industries in over 130 IPR proceedings to date. The continuing recognition of our extensive experience and strong track record on behalf of our clients reflects the contributions of the firm&rsquo;s entire PTAB Trial practice group and validates our approach of leveraging the skills of both patent litigators and patent prosecution attorneys.<br /> &nbsp;</p>Firm News23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118924&format=xmlIP Alert: Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Without Direct Evidence of Deceptive Intenthttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118788&format=xml<p>On September 1, in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1799.OPINION.9-1-2021_1828017.pdf"><i>Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc.</i></a>, the Federal Circuit affirmed the unenforceability of a patent on grounds the patentee engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution before the USPTO, based on circumstantial evidence showing intent to deceive the USPTO. This case represents the latest guidance from the Federal Circuit on the standard for inequitable conduct set forth in&nbsp;<i>Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &amp; Co</i>., previously reported <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=40&amp;an=7992&amp;format=xml&amp;p=3134">here</a>.</p> <p>The claims at issue in <i>Belcher</i> cover adrenaline formulations having a pH between 2.8 and 3.3. Prior to filing the application for the patent-in-suit, Belcher submitted a New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In communications with the FDA, Belcher represented that a 2.8 to 3.3 pH range for an adrenaline formulation was an &ldquo;old&rdquo; range.</p> <p>Belcher&rsquo;s Chief Science Officer participated in drafting Belcher&rsquo;s NDA and, though not a patent attorney or patent agent, was also involved in the drafting and prosecution of the application for the patent-in-suit. During prosecution, this Belcher employee asserted to the USPTO that the 2.8 to 3.3 pH range was a &ldquo;critical&rdquo; innovation that yielded &ldquo;unexpected results.&rdquo; At the time, the employee was in possession of prior art that disclosed the claimed pH range, but did not submit the prior art to the USPTO.</p> <p>The district court held that the Belcher employee engaged in inequitable conduct by withholding prior art from the USPTO, and Belcher appealed to the Federal Circuit. Inequitable conduct is a defense to patent infringement that, if proven, renders the asserted patent unenforceable. In <i>Therasense</i>, the Federal Circuit held that for a defendant to prevail on an inequitable conduct defense, the defendant must establish both 1) the materiality of a withheld reference, and 2) the applicant&rsquo;s intent to deceive the USPTO. Prior to <i>Therasense</i>, the Federal Circuit had endorsed a sliding scale analysis, in which highly material prior art could minimize the need to prove intent.</p> <p>Regarding materiality, the district court had found the asserted claims to be invalid as obvious based on the withheld prior art&mdash;a finding Belcher did not challenge. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the lower court&rsquo;s determination of invalidity established the withheld prior art as &ldquo;necessarily material&rdquo; to patentability.</p> <p>Turning to the intent prong of the inequitable conduct analysis, the court referenced the Belcher employee&rsquo;s repeated discussion of the prior art with the FDA, and described his characterization of the claimed pH range to the USPTO as an &ldquo;about-face.&rdquo; Therefore, despite no direct evidence of deceptive intent, the court held that the &ldquo;single most reasonable inference&rdquo; is that Belcher&rsquo;s employee possessed the specific intent to deceive the USPTO when withholding the prior art.</p> <p>Having found both materiality of the withheld prior art and that the Belcher employee intended to deceive the USPTO, the court ruled the patent-in-suit unenforceable for inequitable conduct.</p> <p>The <i>Belcher</i> decision is another reminder that patent applicants&mdash; including their non-attorney employees&mdash;are bound by a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the USPTO. The decision also suggests that the intent prong of the inequitable conduct analysis may remain flexible even after <i>Therasense</i>.</p> <p>For more information on this topic, please contact Fitch Even partner <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2618&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Brett J. Smith</a>, author of this alert.<br /> <br /> <b>Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;</sup></b></p>IP Alerts13 Sep 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118788&format=xmlIP Alert: Federal Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Expert Opinion on Reasonable Royalty Ratehttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118792&format=xml<p>On August 26, in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1413.OPINION.8-26-2021_1825247.pdf"><i>MCL Intellectual Property, LLC</i><i> v. Micron Technology, Inc.</i></a>, the Federal Circuit affirmed exclusion of an expert opinion regarding a reasonable royalty, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert&rsquo;s unfounded opinions and late-disclosed damages theories.</p> <p>MLC Intellectual Property, LLC (&ldquo;MLC&rdquo;) had brought the action in district court against Micron Technology, Inc. (&ldquo;Micron&rdquo;) for infringement of a patent covering an apparatus for programming an electrically alterable non-volatile semiconductor memory cell having more than two predetermined memory states. The district court granted a <i>Daubert </i>motion excluding the opinion of MCL&rsquo;s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty rate on three grounds: 1) the expert&rsquo;s characterization of prior licenses as reflecting a 0.25% royalty rate as factually unfounded, 2) MLC did not adequately disclose its reasonable royalty contentions including the 0.25% royalty rate in fact discovery (prior to expert discovery), and 3) MLC&rsquo;s damages expert did not adequately address apportionment of the patented technology in the accused product. After granting a petition for interlocutory appeal of the <i>Daubert </i>ruling, the Federal Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the expert&rsquo;s opinion on all three grounds.</p> <p>Regarding the expert&rsquo;s characterization of two prior license agreements as reflecting use of a 0.25% royalty rate, the Federal Circuit noted that the prior license agreements did not disclose a 0.25% royalty rate and the expert did not attempt to derive a rate from the disclosed lump-sum payment amounts and projected sales. The Federal Circuit rejected the expert&rsquo;s opinion that a 0.25% royalty rate in the most favored customer provision in one of the agreements demonstrated that such rate &ldquo;represented&rdquo; the lump sum amounts in the agreements.&nbsp;</p> <p>Next, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court&rsquo;s ruling that the expert opinion should be excluded because the proposed reasonable royalty rate of 0.25% and factual bases therefor were not previously disclosed in fact discovery and were disclosed for the first time in the expert&rsquo;s report. During fact discovery, Micron served interrogatories requesting MLC&rsquo;s damages contentions and supporting evidence, and MLC responded that the &ldquo;royalty rate will be based on at least the <i>Georgia-Pacific </i>factors, and will include but not [be] limited to consideration of license agreements&rdquo; that were produced in discovery. However, MLC did not disclose the 0.25% royalty rate in its answers to the interrogatories. The Federal Circuit noted that MLC had the agreement and extrinsic evidence &ldquo;in its possession from the outset of the case, largely mitigating any timing and fairness concerns preventing MLC from knowing its contentions about a reasonable royalty until after the close of fact discovery.&rdquo; Thus, the Federal Circuit, citing the Northern District of California, stated that Rule 26(a) disclosures &ldquo;should include a claimed royalty rate .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. &nbsp;&lsquo;even though subsequent discovery may eventually warrant a modification of the calculation.&rsquo;&rdquo; Therefore, the Federal Circuit ruled that since MLC did not disclose the claimed 0.25% royalty during fact discovery, the district court was within its discretion to exclude the royalty rate from the expert&rsquo;s opinions as a sanction for not disclosing the royalty rate during fact discovery.&nbsp;</p> <p>Third, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court&rsquo;s exclusion of the expert&rsquo;s opinion because the expert did not further apportion the 0.25% royalty rate to account for the relative value of the technology within the accused product. The expert had opined that the prior license agreements were comparable to the hypothetical negotiation of the patent-in-suit wherein apportionment of the technology would already be accounted for in the royalty rate. The expert had opined that comparability is demonstrated because the flash memory market is a commodity market. The court rejected this theory, reasoning that, &ldquo;general characterization of the flash memory market as a whole as a commodity market does not satisfy this requirement of establishing that a license is, in fact, comparable.&rdquo; Further, after noting that of the 41 patents licensed in one of the prior license agreements only one patent was the patent-in-suit, the Federal Circuit stated that the expert &ldquo;conducted no assessment of the licensed technology versus the accused technology to account for any differences.&rdquo; Based on lack of sufficient evidence of comparability, the Federal Circuit held that the expert&rsquo;s &ldquo;comparable license theory does not properly apportion for the value of the patented technology.&rdquo;</p> <p>The Federal Circuit further rejected the argument that the expert need not apportion the value of the technology in the accused product because the royalty base was the smallest single patent practicing unit (&ldquo;SSPPU&rdquo;). The court noted that the claimed technology was &ldquo;not commensurate in scope&rdquo; with the SSPPU which also contained allegedly non-infringing features such as &ldquo;error correction hardware,&rdquo; &ldquo;data clocking hardware,&rdquo; &ldquo;addressing hardware,&rdquo; &ldquo;cache registers,&rdquo; and &ldquo;digital to analog converters,&rdquo; and then affirmed the district court&rsquo;s exclusion order &ldquo;for failure to apportion.&rdquo;</p> <p>This case is one of a series of Federal Circuit cases analyzing reasonable royalty awards and evaluating apportionment in the royalty rate and/or royalty base to account for the use of the patented technology. The case reinforces the critical importance of developing concrete evidence of apportionment of the patented technology in the accused product as a foundation for a reasonable royalty damage claim. Further, the case emphasizes the importance of early disclosure of contentions, including quantification of damage contentions and/or a claimed reasonable royalty rate. Disclosing this information during the fact discovery phase of a lawsuit may be necessary to avoid exclusion of contentions that are first asserted in expert reports.&nbsp;</p> <p>For more information on this ruling, please contact Fitch Even partner&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2581&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482" target="_blank">Karl R. Fink</a>, author of this alert.&nbsp;<br /> <b><br /> Fitch Even IP Alert</b><b><sup>&reg;</sup></b>&nbsp;</p>IP Alerts13 Sep 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118792&format=xmlFitch Even Recognized Among Vault's 2022 Top 3 "Best Midsize Law Firms to Work For"http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118599&format=xml<p>Fitch Even is pleased to be included on Vault&rsquo;s 2022 list of the <a href="https://www.vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/introducing-vault-laws-2022-best-midsize-law-firms-to-work-for">25 Best Midsize Law Firms to Work For</a>, ranked at #3, moving up seven spots from last year and the top Chicago-based firm on the list.</p> <p>Rankings are derived from Vault&rsquo;s nationwide Law Firm Associate Survey, in which associates at midsize firms of 150 attorneys or fewer rated and commented on various aspects of their work life. The rankings were calculated using a formula that weighed associate ratings in categories including firm culture, quality of work, associate/partner relations, and others.</p> <p>Fitch Even was also named to Vault&rsquo;s 2022 <a href="https://www.vault.com/top-150-best-law-firms-to-work-for-under-150">Top 150 Under 150 list</a>&mdash;Vault&rsquo;s recognition of the leading small and midsize firms in the U.S. with 150 or fewer attorneys. Vault conducts extensive research and assessment of firms of this size and narrows the results to compile its list of 150 firms &ldquo;known for providing top-notch service and delivering big results.&rdquo;</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.vault.com/blogs/vaults-law-blog-legal-careers-and-industry-news/introducing-vault-laws-2022-best-midsize-law-firms-to-work-for"><img src="http://full.fitcheven.com/2E8FB4/assets/images//TopRanked_VaultSeal_20221.png" hspace="0" vspace="0" align="absmiddle" alt="" border="0" width="150" height="139" /></a><br /> &nbsp;</p>Firm News24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118599&format=xmlFitch Even Attorneys Joe Marinelli and Tom James Published in ABA <i>Business Law Today</i>http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118491&format=xml<p>An article written by Fitch Even attorneys <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2603&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Joseph F. Marinelli</a> and Thomas A. James is featured in <i>Business Law Today</i>, published by the ABA Business Law Section. In the article, &ldquo;<a href="https://businesslawtoday.org/2021/08/federal-circuit-affirms-invalidation-of-digital-camera-patent-as-ineligible-under-%c2%a7-101/">Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Digital Camera Patent as Ineligible Under &sect; 101</a>,&rdquo; Joe and Tom discuss a case in which the Federal Circuit issued a decision finding that a patent for an improved digital camera was directed to an abstract idea and therefore not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101.</p> <p>To access the article and other content, please visit the <a href="https://businesslawtoday.org/2021/08/federal-circuit-affirms-invalidation-of-digital-camera-patent-as-ineligible-under-%c2%a7-101/"><i>Business Law Today</i> website</a>.</p>Professional Activities17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118491&format=xmlIP Alert: Too Much Delay Causes Loss of Patent Rights – Reduxhttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118490&format=xml<p>On August 5, in <i><a href="http://full.fitcheven.com/2E8FB4/assets/files/documents/Personalized%20Media%20Communications%20v.%20Apple.pdf">Personalized Media Communications v. Apple</a></i>, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas invalidated patents asserted by Personalized Media Communications (&ldquo;PMC&rdquo;) for reasons that resonate strongly with both the legal setting and facts of the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s recent <i>Hyatt</i> decision, as reported <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=40&amp;an=116616&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5486">here</a>. In <i>Hyatt</i>, unreasonable delay during patent prosecution justified the USPTO&rsquo;s rejection of certain pending patent applications. The district court, in <i>Personalized Media</i>, recognized the prosecution laches from <i>Hyatt</i> as a basis for invalidating patents during litigation, relying heavily upon the many notes of similarity between Hyatt&rsquo;s and PMC&rsquo;s respective behaviors while prosecuting their respective applications. Notably, the court held PMC&rsquo;s patents to be unenforceable <i>after</i> PMC had already received a jury verdict against Apple for more than three hundred million dollars.</p> <p>The district court&rsquo;s opinion observed the many similarities between the facts related to PMC&rsquo;s patents and those sought by Hyatt. PMC filed 328 patent applications during the &ldquo;GATT Bubble,&rdquo; i.e., the period shortly before the U.S. switched patent term from seventeen years from <i>issuance </i>to twenty years from <i>filing</i> of the earliest priority application. The court noted PMC&rsquo;s filings were &ldquo;a number not far behind&rdquo; Hyatt&rsquo;s 381 GATT Bubble applications.</p> <p>PMC&rsquo;s delay tactics were &ldquo;for a comparable period&rdquo; to the seven to eleven years it took for Hyatt to file his four applications and the ten to nineteen years it took him to present the pending claims.</p> <p>PMC filed each of its applications with a single, admitted &ldquo;placeholder&rdquo; claim. The court found this practice similar to Hyatt&rsquo;s practice of filing applications with &ldquo;small claim sets, many of which were identical to each other.&rdquo; PMC contemporaneously or subsequently amended its claims, sometimes to recite identical language.</p> <p>PMC&rsquo;s applications were similar to the &ldquo;atypically long and complex&rdquo; applications filed by Hyatt. For example, one of PMC&rsquo;s applications contained 559 pages of text and 22 pages of figures.</p> <p>PMC added large numbers of claims to its pending applications. PMC sought anywhere from 6,000 (estimate from PMC&rsquo;s witness) to 20,000 claims (an examiner&rsquo;s estimate) across two specifications, which the court likened to the 115,000 claims (including 45,000 independent claims) across Hyatt&rsquo;s eleven specifications.</p> <p>The court also noted that PMC&rsquo;s applications were difficult for the USPTO to examine, like Hyatt&rsquo;s. Issues related to the complexity, number, size, and overlap among PMC&rsquo;s applications were exacerbated by the thousands of references in PMC&rsquo;s information disclosures. The USPTO examiners noted that many of these references bore questionable relevance to the claimed inventions, and several were &ldquo;abjectly irrelevant.&rdquo;</p> <p>To be sure, there were differences as well between PMC&rsquo;s case and Hyatt&rsquo;s. But the court discounted the USPTO&rsquo;s ability to move prosecution forward in PMC&rsquo;s applications, because &ldquo;prosecution laches considers the <i>applicant&rsquo;s</i> conduct.&rdquo; Furthermore, the court noted that PMC&rsquo;s later efforts to develop and implement a plan to move their patent applications along did not sufficiently mitigate against PMC&rsquo;s earlier conduct in these regards.</p> <p>As noted in <i>Hyatt</i>, &ldquo;prosecution laches may render a patent unenforceable when it has issued only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution that constitutes an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system under a totality of the circumstances.&rdquo; In the context of the district court litigation in <i>Personalized Media</i>, the defendant had to demonstrate that PMC&rsquo;s issued patents were unenforceable under prosecution laches under the clear and convincing evidence standard. The court concluded that the defendant met that standard:</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">PMC sought 30 to 50 years of patent protection, and it obtained exactly that. The &rsquo;091 patent itself issued 17 years after the filing date. Its claims will expire 34 years after the application was filed, 42 years after the 1987 specification, and 48 years after the 1981 parent application. Delays of this magnitude <i>do not occur by accident</i> and <i>do not occur when an applicant reasonably pursues prosecution</i> (emphasis added).</p> <p>The <i>Hyatt</i> and <i>Personalized Media</i> decisions warn that prosecution gamesmanship that leads to unreasonable and unexplained delay may lead to a loss of patent rights for potentially legitimate inventions. For more information regarding this guidance, please contact Fitch Even partner <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=2610&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Steven G. Parmelee</a>, author of this alert.<br /> <b><br /> Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;</sup></b></p>IP Alerts17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118490&format=xmlIP Alert: U.S. Department of Commerce Files Federal Trademark Registrations to Combat Scams Against Trademark Applicantshttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118443&format=xml<p>On August 4, the U.S. Department of Commerce filed applications to register several USPTO trademarks. The applications are part of ongoing efforts by the USPTO to combat frauds committed against trademark owners and applicants. The USPTO applications include:</p> <p style="text-align: left;"><img src="http://full.fitcheven.com/2E8FB4/assets/images//USPTO Trademark Chart.JPG" hspace="0" vspace="0" align="absmiddle" alt="" border="0" width="380" height="170" />&nbsp;</p> <p>The USPTO specified various goods and services in its applications, including but not limited to downloadable documents in the field of intellectual property, maintaining registries of trademarks, providing training in the field of intellectual property rights, providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for searching databases, and advisory services relating to intellectual property rights.</p> <p>Since its inception in January 1975, the USPTO has examined trademark filings for other applicants. Now, for the first time in its history, the agency will review its own trademark applications and determine the registrability of each mark. To avoid certain issues that may arise in the USPTO&rsquo;s examination of its own applications, the U.S. Department of Commerce filed the applications on behalf of the USPTO. This follows a pattern used by other bureaus of the Department of Commerce where, for example, the Department of Commerce has submitted filings for the Internal Revenue Service and the Food and Drug Administration.</p> <p>According to comments by the USPTO, the USPTO is seeking protection of its logo and name in hopes of preventing scammers from using the agency&rsquo;s trademarks to commit fraud, such as falsely soliciting maintenance fees on trademark applicants. There has been a significant increase in the number of third parties who are unlawfully passing themselves off as the USPTO. The USPTO has already taken several steps to protect trademark applicants from various scams, including posting a list of known scammers on the USPTO website. In a <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/protecting-our-trademark-customers-with">blog post</a> released on the www.uspto.gov website, David Gooder, the Commissioner for Trademarks, stated that the federal trademark registrations will help the USPTO &ldquo;take appropriate legal action as needed to protect the USPTO brand from improper use by those trying to impersonate or falsely claim affiliation or endorsement with the USPTO.&rdquo;</p> <p>The USPTO took approximately 46 years to seek federal registration of its marks. However, the agency believes that &ldquo;it&rsquo;s never too late to do the right thing&rdquo; and will continue to fight against scammers to protect trademark customers.</p> <p>In addition to the USPTO&rsquo;s efforts to protect trademark customers from third parties, it is also important for owners to protect themselves. If a trademark owner or applicant receives any solicitations from an agency claiming to be the USPTO and demanding the payment of required fees, it should carefully review the demand and seek the advice of counsel before submitting any such payments.</p> <p>Like the USPTO, trademark owners should seek federal registration to preserve the exclusive right to use their trademarks. Moreover, once the owner secures a federal registration, it should proactively monitor its marks and enforce its rights to protect its brand from any unauthorized third-party use. Failure to do so could run the risk that the mark may become weakened in the future and potentially unable to serve as a unique source identifier.</p> <p>For more information regarding the USPTO&rsquo;s trademark applications, fraudulent third-party solicitations, and enforcement of trademark rights, please contact Fitch Even attorney <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=16851&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Kerianne A. Strachan</a>, author of this alert.<br /> <br /> <b>Fitch Even IP Alert</b><sup><b>&reg;</b></sup></p>IP Alerts12 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118443&format=xmlFitch Even Attorney Jennifer Suarez to Speak at NCPP Coursehttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118429&format=xml<p>Fitch Even attorney <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=12371&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Jennifer V. Suarez</a> will speak at &ldquo;Patent Practitioner (Re)loading,&rdquo; an online CLE course hosted by the National Council on Patent Practicum (NCPP) on August 12 at 12 noon EDT.</p> <p>Jennifer will be a co-panelist discussing the &ldquo;Art of Inventor and Examiner Interviews,&rdquo; highlighting key points to have productive inventor and examiner interviews.</p> <p>For more information on the course and to register, please visit the <a href="https://courses.thencpp.org/patent-practitioner-reloading?r_done=1">NCPP website</a>.</p>Professional Activities12 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118429&format=xmlFitch Even Partner David Kogan Speaks at International Economic and Venture Forumshttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118230&format=xml<p>In recent months, Fitch Even partner <a href="https://www.fitcheven.com/?t=3&amp;A=4141&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">David M. Kogan</a> was an invited speaker at two conferences, the <a href="https://www.ivfrt.ru/en/events/russian-venture-forum-2021/">Russian Venture Forum</a> and the <a href="https://forumspb.com/en/about/?lang=en">St. Petersburg International Economic Forum</a>. In both cases, David was the sole U.S. intellectual property law attorney serving as a panelist for the given programs.</p> <p>On April 8, during the Russian Venture Forum, David participated in &ldquo;<a href="https://russianventureforum.ru/en/program/31">A Deal with Intelligence: Heading for Capitalized IP</a>,&rdquo; a 90-minute panel discussion on the importance of IP protection to start-up companies in ensuring the core technology of the start-up is protected against its competition and attracting potential investors through a comprehensive patent portfolio.&nbsp;David and the other panelists also reviewed the differences between Russian and U.S. patent law, as well as the steps involved in the patenting process and their related costs.</p> <p>On June 5, during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, David participated in &ldquo;<a href="https://forumspb.com/en/programme/business-programme/94255/">Intellectual Property: New Opportunities for Young Entrepreneurs</a>,&rdquo; a panel discussion on the burgeoning role of intellectual property in the high-tech sector and in the science and technology industry in general. The panelists explored how best to encourage and support young innovators from a wider range of backgrounds and educate them on the patent process and its importance to entrepreneurs.&nbsp;<br /> &nbsp;</p>Professional Activities23 Jul 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118230&format=xmlChicago Attorney Tiffany Cunningham Appointed to Federal Circuit in Historic Votehttp://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118184&format=xml<p>Yesterday the U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment of Chicago-based patent litigator Tiffany P. Cunningham to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bipartisan 63 to 33 vote. Notably, Ms. Cunningham makes history as the first Black judge to sit on the Federal Circuit bench. She will be filling the seat of Judge Evan J. Wallach, who took senior status at the end of June. In doing so, the 12 active Federal Circuit judgeships will now be split evenly between men and women for the first time.</p> <p>President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Cunningham on March 30 and sent her nomination for the Federal Circuit seat to the Senate on April 19. On May 26, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Cunningham during a brief nomination hearing. During the hearing, Sen. Cory Booker reflected on the historic nature of Cunningham&rsquo;s nomination, concluding &ldquo;[W]e have to mark these moments where we are making extraordinary progress&mdash;the witness before us today is an extraordinary human being, by any measure.&rdquo;</p> <p>Cunningham, currently a partner at the Chicago office of Perkins Coie, is a native of Detroit. She earned a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998 and graduated from Harvard Law School in 2001. During her nomination hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin asked Cunningham why she wanted to step away from her highly successful litigation practice to serve on the bench. She responded that &ldquo;this is literally my dream job,&rdquo; recalling how during her first days of clerking for Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk in 2001, she noticed pictures of the judges on the walls&mdash;&quot;a court that had fine, fine jurists,&rdquo; but all were white and only two were women. &quot;At that point in time,&rdquo; Cunningham explained, &ldquo;I kind of pinned my mental vision board that I hoped that one day, I could be a judge at that court. So I'm truly humbled to be sitting here before you today, and it's really a dream job that I&rsquo;ve aspired to.&rdquo;</p> <p>Fitch Even congratulates Tiffany Cunningham and joins the chorus of IP professionals welcoming her appointment to the Federal Circuit. We are excited to witness this significant milestone and applaud the opportunity for her to bring her substantial experience and impressive scope of knowledge to the court.<br /> &nbsp;</p>Firm News20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 -0800http://full.fitcheven.com/?t=40&an=118184&format=xml