August 26, 2015
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “Kimble v. Marvel: Practical Tips for Extending Licensing Agreements Beyond Patent Expiration,” presented by Christine A. Pompa. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, August 26, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On June 22, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, upholding the long-standing rule that prohibits a patent holder from charging royalties for the use of an invention after the underlying patent has expired. As a result, patent holders may want to consider ways to negotiate competitive, mutually beneficial, and enforceable license agreements that exist beyond the term of the underlying patent.
During the webinar, we will discuss the following and more:
- The case law leading up to the opinion in Kimble v. Marvel
- A summary of the opinion
- Tips and strategies for drafting licensing agreements that extend royalty fee payments beyond the life of a patent
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Christine A. Pompa. Christine has extensive litigation and trial experience in patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright cases. She also provides clients with legal opinions on non-infringement and invalidity, as well as IP- and technology-related agreements, including licensing agreements, product terms and conditions, service agreements, and privacy policies.
IP Alert | Stock Ownership Leads to Vacatur of $2.75B District Court JudgmentAugust 8, 2022
On June 23, in Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems, the Federal Circuit vacated judgment of the district court because stock held by the judge's wife violated the recusal statute and was not harmless error. Read more
IP Alert | Rehearing Reverses Earlier Federal Circuit Decision Finding Silence Supported Negative Claim LimitationJuly 6, 2022
On June 21, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., a reshuffled Federal Circuit panel reversed course on rehearing to find that a negative claim limitation was not supported by silence in the patent's specification. Read more