Animal Health
Biotech
GMP
Intellectual Property
Legal
Management Skills
Medical Devices
Pharmaceutical
Support Staff

Sponsoring & Exhibiting

For sponsorship and exhibition opportunities at Management Forum events click here

Event Management

To find out about event management click here

Speaking Opportunities

Speaking opportunities are available on selected Management Forum events, please contact us for further information

Management Forum Brochure

Download our catalogue here

Intellectual Property

How to Avoid Common Pitfalls in Combined EU/US Patent Applications

16-17 May 2018

Standard
Excluding VAT @ 20.00%

Venue not yet confirmed

Enrol now

Bespoke training

We can customise this course to meet the requirements of your organisation.

Learn more

Course Overview

THIS SEMINAR WILL INCLUDE:-

  • The often unseen traps posed by differing EU and US requirements
  • Best practices for reconciling the EU and US requirements and drafting an application to:
    • Maximise scope of protection
    • Reduce objections
    • Minimise costs and maximise flexibility
  • Prosecution procedures
    • EPO and USPTO approaches to rejections
    • Responding to EPO and USPTO rejections, based on an optimised specification
    • Limiting US prosecution history estoppel
  • Worked exmamples

Why you should attend

This seminar addressed the parallel, but substantially different, rules for drafting and prosecuting patents required by the Examiners and Appeal Board of the EPO and USPTO. You will study the contrasting approaches of the EPO and USPTO and learn the experts’ techniques for drafting an applications for, and responding to, rejections issued by the two offices.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

  • You and the other delegates will be invited to correct and modify a sample application to be field with both the EPO and the USPTO.
  • You will be asked to develop effective arguments, for the EPO and USPTO, with respect to hypothetical patent office rejections

Who should attend

  • Patent professionals and other executiveds who are responsible for patent applications that are filed in, and prosecuted before, both the European and US Patent Offices
  • Managers overseeing and evaluating the multinational patent prosecution

Programme Day One

Review of the similarities and differences in the statutory systems of the EPO and USPTO

  • Legal aspects
  • Procedural aspects
  • Substantive aspects
  • Formal aspects

‘Best Practices’ for preparing one specification to comply with the European and US requirements for:

  • Priority
  • Added subject matter/new matter
  • Industrial application/utility
  • Novelty
  • Inventive step/nonobviousness
  • Description and sufficient basis/ enablement and written description
  • Claim clarity and conciseness/‘distinct claiming’
  • Limiting estoppel and implications of the AIA

EPO/US: Prosecution and Appeal Procedures

  • Likely timelines and statutory deadlines
  • EPO
  • Euro-PCT
  • USPTO
  • Burdens of proof
  • Use of provisional and non-provisional applications
  • Objections and rejections
  • Non-final and final Office Actions
  • Interviews
  • Patent Office appeals
  • Judicial appeals

EPO/US Definitions of Prior Art and Priority

  • EPO
    • Article 54 definitions of ‘State of the Art’
  • US
    • Definitions of ‘Prior Art’ for anticipation and obviousness
    • Ramifications of the America Invents Act

Programme Day Two

  • EPO/US: Rejections and Responses*
  • Inventive Step (EPO) vs Obviousness (USPTO)
  • EPO/US: Strategies for persuading the Examiner and Board

Prosecution History Estoppel in the US

  • Estoppel variants
  • Controlling the adverse impact of arguments to the USPTO
  • Effect of representations made in corresponding, non-US applications
  • Disclosure obligations after Therasense

Arguments on Non-Technical (EPO)and Subject Matter (US)

  • Article 52(2), (3) exclusions
    • ‘Technical’
    • Two hurdles
    • Potential technical effect T26/86 Koch & Sterzel
    • Computer program/signal claims
  • Arguments to the USPTO after Alice
    • Abstract vs Structural limitations
    • USPTO “Examination Instructions”

Worked Examples

  • Delegates will be invited to analyse and modify sample applications suitable for the EPO and USPTO
  • Delegates will be asked to develop effective arguments, for the EPO and USPTO, with respect to a series of hypothetical office actions

Plenary Session
• Delegates and speakers will discuss the worked examples with the aim of optimising specifications acceptable to both the EPO and USPTO

Presenters

Bradley Hulbert

Bradley Hulbert is a founding partner in McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, an 80-lawyer patent firm in Chicago. Mr. Hulbert has been lead counsel in a wide range of successful patent lawsuits and is an adjunct professor of law at the Chicago-Kent Law School.

David Meldrum

David Meldrum has been in private practice since 1998 and joined D Young & Co in 2001 and became a partner in 2006. David practises in a variety of engineering disciplines including computer hardware and software, electronics, optics, nanotechnology, medical devices, automotive engineering and registered designs. He is experienced in all aspects of patent procurement including drafting specifications, international filing programmes and patent prosecution, and in portfolio management and competitor monitoring. He is a member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). David’s clients include multi-national corporations and SMEs based in the UK, Europe and worldwide and he regularly presents IP lectures for clients and associates. He is a contributor to the D Young & Co Patent Newsletter.

You may also be interested in...

US Patent Practice

Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA

Strategic IP Planning

Patentability and State of the Art Searching

Freedom to Operate Searching

Continuing professional development

This course qualifies for the following CPD programmes:

  • CPD certificate of attendance: 5.50 hours
  • General Council of the Bar: 5.50 hours

Previous customers include...

  • AOMB Intellectual Property Consultants
  • Bayer Cropscience NV
  • BIIP cvba
  • Chas Hude A/S
  • Corax IP
  • DeltaPatents B.V.
  • DSM Intellectual Property
  • DuPont Nutrition Biosciences ApS
  • Hoffmann Eitle
  • HTC
  • Hunter Douglas Industries BV
  • IBA
  • Kolster Oy Ab
  • Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbH
  • Nexeon Ltd
  • NXP Semiconductors
  • Patentanwalt Dr Andreas Weiser
  • Patentanwaltskanzlei Matschnig & Forsthuber
  • Pfizer Limited
  • Plougmann & Vingtoft
  • Plougmann Vingtoft
  • Protector IP Consultants AS
  • Research and Markets
  • SCA Hygiene Products Ltd
  • Valea AB
  • Waldner IP Law Ltd
  • Withers & Rogers LLP
  • Xaar Plc
  • Yara SA/NV
  • Zealand Pharma