December 17, 2014
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Lure of Functional Claiming: Benefits, Pitfalls, and Recent Court Decisions,” presented by Stephen S. Favakeh and Jonathan H. Urbanek. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, December 17, 2014, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
Patent attorneys have historically used functional claim language in an effort to cover what an invention does rather than what it is. The use of functional language in a claim presents potential advantages over strictly reciting structure, but also presents potential risks during prosecution and litigation. Understanding how the USPTO and courts are currently evaluating functional claim language is essential to writing and prosecuting patent applications that issue with valuable and enforceable claims.
During the webinar, we will cover these topics and more:
- Functional claim language: history, examples, and advantages
- Functional claim-drafting techniques for maximum impact at the USPTO
- Cases including Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. and their impact on the interpretation of functional claim terms during litigation
- Writing and prosecuting applications to survive the storm of litigation and post-grant proceedings
Our speakers will be Fitch Even attorneys Stephen S. Favakeh and Jonathan H. Urbanek. For over 20 years, Steve has assisted clients in the strategic procurement and enforcement of patent and trademark rights in the U.S. and abroad, with a special focus on Japanese clients. Jon focuses his IP law practice on patent preparation and prosecution and advises clients working in diverse technologies on issues including freedom-to-operate decisions, product design-arounds, and competitive technology analysis.
- 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