InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

European Patent Reform Forum USA 2014

FREE registration for in-house/patent / IP counsel, academics and R&D professionals

SV Registration


December 10 2014, San Jose


NY Registration


December 12 2014, New York




Agenda - Silicon Valley

Agenda - New York

Agenda - New York

Agenda - New York



Contact us


Download the agenda for San Jose here.
Download the agenda for New York City here.

8.00 Registration

8.45 Opening remarks by Managing IP 

8.50 The European Patent Reform: an overview, by Pierre Véron, partner, Véron & Associés; Member of the Expert Panel group of the Unified Patent Court; Member of the Drafting Committee of the Rules of Procedure

9.05 The Unitary Patent

  • What does the new patent look like? How does it work?
  • Pros and cons of filing the UP in comparison to a national patent
  • Strategic advice for prosecution
  • A guide to the translation regime
  • An overview of costs and implications for your budget

Stefan Luginbuehl, lawyer, international legal affairs, European Patent Office
Matthew Weinstein
, intellectual property legal counsel, Accenture
Paul Inman
, partner, Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
Michael Schneider
, partner, Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
Peter Koch
, associate, Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co

10.00 Understanding the Unified Patent Court in detail

  • How to best understand and utilise the new divisions and structures
  • Strategising in advance to gain a competitive edge over your competitors

Kim Jessum, associate general counsel, Heraeus Incorporated
Liz Cohen
, partner, Bristows
Robert Burrows
, partner, Bristows

10.30 Coffee break and networking

11.05 Bifurcation: Why you shouldn't be scared of it

  • What is it, and how does it work?
  • Evaluating pros and cons of bifurcation
  • What can you learn from current German practices?
  • Implications of bifurcation for US companies, and how to handle them

Larry Horn, CEO, MPEG LA
Pamela Simonton
, executive vice president and general counsel, Exelixis Pharmaceuticals
Clemens Heusch
, head of European litigation, Nokia
Jeffrey Butler,
senior associate general counsel, (Bio/Pharma sector)
Gottfried Schüll
, partner, COHAUSZ & FLORACK
Arwed Burrichter
, partner, COHAUSZ & FLORACK

12.00 Industry discussion: Global litigation strategies

  • How to utilise simultaneous proceedings in a number of countries to get ahead of your competitor
  • Which countries are best suited to invalidate your competitor's patents
  • Best global litigation practices on limited budget

Laura Grunzinger, IP counsel, Tredegar Corporation
Julia Tanase
, director, legal, Technicolor
William Cook
, partner, Marks & Clerk
Graham Burnett-Hall
, partner, Marks & Clerk

12.55 Lunch

13.45
How to win opposition proceedings without discovery

  • The benefits and pitfalls of discovery
  • Similarities with and lessons learned from PTAB proceedings
  • Best practises to survive without obtaining evidence from the opposing party

Koen Bijvank, partner, V.O.
Sherry Knowles
, principal, Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies
Charles Macedo
, partner, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein
Bernard Ledeboer
, partner, V.O.
Michael Loney
, Americas editor, Managing IP (moderator)

14.40
Litigation planning and forum shopping in the European Unified Patent Court

  • Game over? Litigation planning and strategy under the new UPC
  • Risks and opportunities of forum shopping in Europe

David Cohen, chief legal and intellectual property counsel, Vringo
Tim Whitfield
, partner, Powell Gilbert
Alex Wilson
, partner, Powell Gilbert
Isabelle Romet, partner, Véron & Associés

15.30 Coffee break and networking

15.45 Working with your European Patent Attorney

  • Forward planning 
  • Alternative filing strategies 
  • Prosecution decisions and approach

Rosie Hardy, UK and European Patent Attorney, Withers & Rogers LLP

16.15 Alternative IP strategies parallel to the UPC

  • Avoiding costly litigation: dispute resolution alternatives in Europe
  • Best practices and strategies to utilise: third party observation; opposition; and central revocation
  • Interdependency and interplay between existing legal mechanisms and the UPC 

David Por, partner, Allen & Overy
Joachim Feldges
, partner, Allen & Overy
David Cohen
, chief legal and intellectual property counsel, Vringo
Larry Coury
, director, dispute resolution, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

17.10 End of conference


Supporting Organisations

            



Sponsors

    

Bristows    Cohausz & Florack

      
        V.O. Patent & Trademarks      


Media Partner

profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

RT @UPCtracker: This is one of nine (9) cases allocated to Justice Prof Huber (among them consolidated complaint re: adequate legal protect…

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

The complaint against the legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is includ… https://t.co/91NMMhmuYn

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Pfizer argued that plausibility should be an "evidential tool" not a "threshold test", while Actavis warned against… https://t.co/EqhdqxmE6J

Feb 21 2018 05:09 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

February 2018

FRAND aid: Is the European Commission’s SEP guidance useful?

Both patent owners and implementers have welcomed the European Commission’s communication on standard essential patents. Does that mean it has successfully balanced competing interests or merely dodged the difficult questions? James Nurton investigates



Most read articles

Supplements