Effective obviousness arguments in district court and PTAB

Presented by

Robert A. Surrette, President, McAndrews, Held & Malloy; Mary Elizabeth Mauro, Intellectual Property Counsel, Stryker Corp

About this talk

Managing IP’s upcoming webinar ‘Effective obviousness arguments in district court and PTAB’, held in association with McAndrews, Held & Malloy, will take place on November 4 at 5:00pm London time (12pm Eastern/11am Central/9am Pacific). In this webinar speakers will discuss: •Obviousness: the evolving legal standard and its policy rationale •What PTAB/district data tells us (does not tell us) about trends in obviousness holdings •Patent holder tactics to combat obviousness during prosecution and after •Strategies for challenging and defending a patent with no validity presumption and a broadest reasonable interpretation •Best practices for petitioners at the PTAB and defendants in litigation •Practical tips for deploying and combating the objective indicia of non-obviousness Confirmed speakers: •Robert A. Surrette, President, McAndrews, Held & Malloy •Mary Elizabeth Mauro, Intellectual Property Counsel, Stryker Corporation •Michael Loney, Americas editor, Managing IP (moderator)

Related topics:

More from this channel

Upcoming talks (0)
On-demand talks (87)
Subscribers (11335)
‘What keeps in-house counsel awake at night?’ is one way to summarise our editorial focus. We aim to track the strategies of in-house IP counsel within companies, big and small, by speaking directly to them about the day-to-day issues they face. Law firms need practical information that they can apply when advising their clients, and companies find value in benchmarking their strategies with those of their peers. This is why we have adopted this approach in our subscription-based service. Our content is not reactionary or news-focused, but informed and actionable. In this pursuit of in-house intelligence, we also publish several surveys each year that include exclusive data focusing on specific industry issues. These polls allow us to provide an accurate snapshot of how in-house counsel perceive and act on a given issue. Our other core objective is interviewing senior judges, whose insight is valuable for many IP stakeholders. We find that the judiciary are vital for giving counsel, private and in-house, highly useful information for when they are locked in litigation. We continue to speak regularly with IP offices too. Regardless of its specific intent, our coverage is global and encompasses (but is not limited to) the following areas: Copyright; Data; Designs; Patents; Trademarks; and Trade secrets