May 27, 2015
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Strategies for the Use of Expert Evidence in Post-Issuance Proceedings,” presented by Mark A. Borsos. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 27, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) and other post-issuance proceedings have become an increasingly popular means for accused infringers to challenge the validity of issued patents. While IPRs, post-grant reviews (PGR), and reexaminations may be faster and less-expensive alternatives to district court litigation, limitations on discovery and presentation of evidence in patent office proceedings raise concerns that are not present in the average litigation case.
Although expert evidence is not required in every case, decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board thus far have indicated that expert testimony is often crucial to success and that grant or denial of a petition for post-grant proceedings can hinge upon the nature and structure of expert testimony. As a result, eliciting and attacking expert testimony can be an extremely important part of such proceedings.
During this webinar, we will discuss strategies for the following:
- Determining when expert evidence can assist your case
- Eliciting and using expert evidence
- Defending expert depositions
- Challenging your opponent’s expert
Our speaker is Fitch Even partner Mark A. Borsos. Mark has comprehensive litigation experience in discovery, summary judgment briefing, pretrial preparation, settlement negotiations, and trial. Mark’s practice also includes patent preparation and prosecution, with a unique focus on USPTO reissue and reexamination patent proceedings.
- 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