August 28, 2014
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Provisionally Patented: The Strategic Use of Effective Provisional Applications,” presented by Michael J. Krautner and Conor S. Hunt. The webinar will take place on Thursday, August 28, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. PDT / 10:00 a.m. MDT / 11:00 a.m. CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
U.S. provisional patent applications have very few formal requirements. Accordingly, they can be an effective tool used by inventors, businesses, and their patent attorneys to quickly obtain an early filing date at little cost, which can be particularly useful with the current first-to-file system under the America Invents Act. But although provisionals are subject to few requirements of form, to have any value they still must satisfy the same legal disclosure requirements of nonprovisional applications. An effectual provisional application filing strategy should therefore find the right balance of speed and efficiency without sacrificing quality of disclosure.
Our webinar will cover these topics as they relate to provisional applications:
- Their purpose
- The requirements
- Pros and cons of filing provisional applications
- Practical considerations for filing
- Strategies for using provisional applications to build a patent portfolio
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Michael J. Krautner and Conor S. Hunt. Michael has a broad-based practice with significant experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications, managing all stages of IP litigation, and counseling clients on complex IP issues. Conor focuses his practice on domestic and international patent prosecution involving mechanical and e-commerce technologies, as well as on patent evaluation, portfolio management, product clearance, and legal opinions.
- Leveraging Separate IPR Counsel to Maximize Litigation SuccessFitch Even Webinar: November 18, 2021 Read more
IP Alert | USPTO Abused Discretion by Allowing Further Abuse by Ex Parte ReexaminationOctober 22, 2021
On September 29, in In re Vivint, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the interplay between petitions for IPR and a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination. Read more