Leveraging Surveys in Patent Litigation:
|
|
- Dinah Hart
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Surveys in Patent Litigation: Demonstrating Consumer Perception, Avoiding Errors That Impact Damages Best Practices for Developing, Presenting and Challenging Surveys THURSDAY, JULY 10, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Chris Larus, Partner, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Minneapolis Bryan J. Mechell, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Minneapolis Dr. Shankar Iyer, Vice President, Cornerstone Research, Washington, D.C. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.
2 FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
3 FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at ext. 35.
4 FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
5 Using Surveys and Other Quantitative Analyses Developing, Presenting and Challenging Surveys and Regression Analyses July 10, 2014
6 Determining a fair and reasonable royalty is often... a difficult chore, seeming often to involve more the talents of a conjurer than those of a judge. ResQNet.com v. Lansa, 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 6
7 OVERVIEW 1. The Evolving Patent Damages Landscape 2. Economic Analyses Applicable to Patent Valuation 3. Recent Uses of Economic Analyses in Patent Litigation: Effective Uses and Rejected Attempts 4. Avoiding Common Challenges to Economic Analyses 7
8 PATENT DAMAGES LANDSCAPE: INCREASED SCRUTINY 1. Damage awards in patent infringement cases must be supported by sound economic theory and tied to the patented invention s footprint in the marketplace. Uniloc (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2. Damage awards have been rejected if based on speculative and unreliable evidence divorced from proof of economic harm linked to the claimed invention. ResQNet (Fed. Cir. 2010) 8
9 PATENT DAMAGES LANDSCAPE: INCREASED SCRUTINY ResQNet.com v. Lansa: Expert testimony as to reasonably royalty must carefully tie proof of damages to the claimed invention s footprint in the marketplace. i4i Ltd. P ship v. Microsoft: Consumer survey demonstrating realworld consumer behavior provided evidence to demonstrate an appropriate royalty base. IP Innovation v. Red Hat: Damages must reflect economic reality. Uniloc v. Microsoft: Damages based on the entire market value of the accused product are appropriate only where the patented feature creates the basis for consumer demand or substantially creates the value of the component parts. 9
10 PATENT DAMAGES LANDSCAPE: INCREASED SCRUTINY Oracle v. Google: Consumer surveys not inherently unreliable but can become so when expert artificially forced participants or data to desired outcome. Apple v. Motorola: Damages experts testimony excluded for lacking intellectual rigor case dismissed with prejudice. TVI v. Sony: Survey deemed fundamentally flawed and unreliable but court ruled criticism more appropriate for jury determination. NetAirus v. Apple: Survey results unreliable where sought to value something significantly broader than the claimed invention without adequate justification. 10
11 PATENT DAMAGES LANDSCAPE: INCREASED SCRUTINY 1. Detailed economic analyses can help isolate and demonstrate patent value, but must be tied to the patented technology. 2. Consumer surveys and regressions are increasingly used to quantify the economic value of the invention in support of a reasonable royalty rate analysis. 11
12 ECONOMIC ANALYSES APPLICABLE TO PATENT VALUATION 1. Consumer Surveys A. Ranking-Based Conjoint Analysis B. Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis C. Direct Queries 2. Regression Analysis A. Price Premium / Hedonic Analysis B. Market Share Premium C. Merger Analysis 12
13 CONSUMER SURVEYS: BACKGROUND Consumer survey evidence can demonstrate the evidentiary link between the patented invention and consumer demand. Consumer survey evidence must be tied to the patented technology. 13
14 CONSUMER SURVEYS: TYPES OF SURVEY ANALYSES Ranking-Based Conjoint Analysis Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Direct Queries Methodology Allows ranking of products within a group Presents groups of products to choose Queries directed at patented feature/demand Outcome Relative comparison of consumer preferences for product features & combinations Relative comparison of consumer preferences for product features & combinations Demand for patented feature and relative strength of any such demand Details Participants can rank choices. Potential issues if participants oversimplify. Participants must make choices. Allows for multiple choice, yes/no, ranges, rankings. Must be carefully crafted to avoid bias 14
15 CONSUMER SURVEYS: RANKING-BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS Ranking-Based Conjoint Analysis 4 step process 1. Identify product attributes. 2. Conduct a survey where respondents rank the importance of specific attributes in products. 3. Analyze data using statistical analysis to determine relationship between rankings and attributes. 4. Conduct a simulation in which the results of step 3 determine additional value of the target attribute. 15
16 CONSUMER SURVEYS: RANKING-BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS Example: 16
17 CONSUMER SURVEYS: CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis 4 step process 1. Identify product attributes. 2. Conduct a survey where respondents choose among products with different combinations of different attributes. 3. Analyze data using statistical analysis to determine relationship between choices and attributes. 4. Conduct a simulation in which the results of step 3 determine additional value of the target attribute. 17
18 CONSUMER SURVEYS: CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS Example: Appendix A, Survey Expert Report filed in Convolve v. Dell, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2011). 18
19 CONSUMER SURVEYS: CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT ANALYSIS Example: Apple v. Samsung (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) Choice-based conjoint model allowed where respondents chose which of four hypothetical smartphones they preferred. (Dr. Hauser, Apple s survey expert) 1. The use of conjoint survey to quantify decreased demand is supported by literature. 2. Studies have demonstrated that conjoint surveys are able to quantify consumer demand with respect to complex products. 3. Dr. Hauser s approach has peer support. 4. Description of the claim was not overbroad. 19
20 CONSUMER SURVEYS: DIRECT QUERIES Direct Queries can be used to query the extent to which there is demand for a patented feature and the relative strength of any such demand. Include: Multiple choices, yes/no questions, unaided questions, range of choices, rankings. Must be carefully crafted to avoid potential bias. 20
21 CONSUMER SURVEYS: DIRECT QUERIES Example: Multiple Choice Day Decl., Lucent v. Microsoft (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010). 21
22 CONSUMER SURVEYS: DIRECT QUERIES Example: Unaided questions 22
23 CONSUMER SURVEYS: KEY TAKE-AWAYS Serious flaws in survey design and implementation can lead to exclusion of survey evidence. Surveys must be directed to the patented technology. Courts will likely examine literature in the field to determine whether a particular methodology can be used to quantify benefits of the invention. 23
24 REGRESSION ANALYSES: BACKGROUND Regression analysis is a set of statistical techniques that uses data to estimate the relationship between a dependent variable (e.g., product price) and an independent variable (e.g., features). Allows for random error that represents other things that could influence the dependent variable not included in the model. Useful in determining whether the value of a patented feature drives price, market share, or profitability, and what that value is. 24
25 REGRESSION ANALYSES: BACKGROUND Example: Multiple Regression 1. Identify relevant features in product that likely affect price. 2. Hold other features constant and measure impact patented feature has on the price. 3. Estimate value of patented feature to overall product price. 25
26 REGRESSION ANALYSES: TYPES OF MODELS Dependent Variable (patented technology) Price Premium Market Share Prem. Merger Analysis Price Market Share Change in Profits (price & market share) Method Use price hedonic analysis to estimate how prices co-move with product characteristics. Eliminate all other influences on market share & product success to estimate premium. Calculate demand for product with technology. Outcome Price premium enjoyed when using patented feature vs. same product using alternative technology. Measure market share premium enjoyed when using patented feature. Percentage change in product profitability when incorporate patented technology. 26
27 REGRESSION ANALYSES: PRICE PREMIUM Price Premium Example: Multiple Regression 1. Identify relevant features in product that likely affect price. 2. Hold other features constant and measure impact patented feature has on the price. Result: price premium for a set of products that utilize patented technology over a second set of otherwise identical product that do not use patented technology. 27
28 REGRESSION ANALYSES: PRICE PREMIUM Stragent v. Intel (E.D. Tex. March 6, 2014) (Fed. Cir. Judge Dyk) Multivariate hedonic regression used to estimate value of accused feature s contribution to product price. 19 relevant features were either collectively present or not at all in Intel processors. Combination of features was 42% average selling price Each feature assigned identical weight. Methodology relied on arbitrary assumptions not tied to facts. Need to have data points where patented feature is not always part of the same bundle of other features. 28
29 REGRESSION ANALYSES: MARKET SHARE PREMIUM Market Share Example: 1. Identify relevant influences on product that likely affect market share. 2. Hold other influences constant and measure impact patented feature has on market share. Analysis is similar to price premium / hedonics analysis, but the dependent variable is now market share. 29
30 REGRESSION ANALYSES: MERGER ANALYSIS Merger Analysis Example: 1. Calculate initial demand for product with patented feature. 2. Turn off patented feature to create new equilibrium picture of the product s market without the patented technology. 3. Quantitative end result is the % change in profits (product profitability) without patented technology. 30
31 REGRESSION ANALYSES: KEY TAKE-AWAYS Regression-based expert testimony has been tested for years in the antitrust context. Courts in the antitrust context have tended to carefully scrutinize specific variables and assumptions. Recent Federal District Court case law indicates importance of sound methodology and discredits arbitrary assumptions lacking factual basis. 31
32 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: RECENT EFFECTIVE USES TV Interactive Data v. Sony (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2013) Admitting use of conjoint analysis in patent case regarding autoplay feature of DVD player, Blu-Ray player, and PlayStation 3 console. Conjoint analysis, which measured the market s willingness to pay for the patented technology, found reliable for providing a principled basis for choosing the non-patented features. Conjoint surveys can provide reliable insight into consumer choice and willingness to pay for patented technology. 32
33 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: RECENT EFFECTIVE USES Apple v. Samsung (Apple II) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) Admitted conjoint survey used to quantify the hypothetical reduction in sales of accused products had noninfringing alternatives been developed. Conjoint technique was sufficiently supported by the marketing research literature, indicating an acceptance of the technique used by the survey. New conjoint techniques allowed if sufficiently supported by literature. 33
34 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: RECENT EFFECTIVE USES Criticisms relating to under-inclusiveness and clarity of survey can survive a Daubert challenge. Microsoft v. Motorola (W.D. Wash. 2012) Admitting conjoint survey in a case concerning calculation of RAND royalty rates for video decode and Wi-Fi capabilities of Xbox 360. Clarity of questionnaire and argument as to under-inclusiveness best resolved at trial through cross examination. Apple v. Samsung (Apple I) (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2012) Admitting willingness-to-pay surveys relating to smartphones and tablets. Defendant s dissatisfaction with the description of the patented features in the survey and appropriate universe of potential purchasers goes to weight, not admissibility and does not render survey testimony unreliable. 34
35 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: RECENT REJECTIONS Survey not tied to asserted patent claims rejected as flawed. NetAirus Techs. v. Apple (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) Portions of survey found unreliable; survey questions were about all Wi-Fi use on accused phone, while asserted patent narrowly focused on usage while connected to Wi-Fi. Apple v. Motorola (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2012), rev d on other grounds, (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2014) Pertinent evidence excluded because damages model relied on survey designed to estimate value of a cellphone s notification window but survey not designed to determine the relative value of the patented technology to Motorola s customers. 35
36 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: RECENT REJECTIONS Survey not tied to asserted patent claims rejected as flawed. Rembrandt v. Facebook (E.D. Va., Dec. 3, 2013), pet denied for interlocutory appeal, (Fed. Cir. April 7, 2014) Expert had improperly used surveys about importance to users of various features of the Facebook service; equated survey-result percentages reflecting importance with percentages of advertising revenue received by Facebook, without adequate analysis or explanation. Conjoint surveys are rejected for illogical results. Oracle v. Google (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2012) Excluding conjoint analysis for its illogical results, noting that testing only a portion of the total number of features may have caused the problem. 36
37 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: RECENT REJECTIONS Survey cannot be stretched beyond its intended purpose. VirnetX v. Cisco (E.D. Tex. March 1, 2013) Expert precluded from simply substituting a survey result for actual sales data to show apportionment because the expert made no attempt to remove sales of noninfringing items from the sales data. But see Apple II, where new conjoint technique that was sufficiently supported by literature was allowed. 37
38 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: NETAIRUS V. APPLE NetAirus retained two experts to conduct surveys regarding consumer use of the accused iphone 4 products. Portions of one survey struck as unreliable under Daubert because the survey asked questions that had no reliable basis and were tied to functionality that was far beyond the asserted claims. Other survey struck in its entirety: (1) Expert made no effort to shield survey participants from the goals of the survey; (2) the gender of the survey participants was not balanced; and (3) the study asked prospective purchasers questions that required present use of the product. Key Take-Away: Tie the survey to the asserted patent claims and retain an experienced survey expert. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) 38
39 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: ORACLE V. GOOGLE Expert conducted conjoint analysis determination of market share that measured the relative importance to consumers of seven smartphone features, three of which were covered by the patented technology, four of which were not. The expert offered no principle basis for selecting the four non-patented features for inclusion in the analysis. Survey found unreliable because the features selected to be surveyed were purposefully few in number and omitted important features that would have played an important role in real-world consumers preferences. Exclusion was required because the chosen features led to irrational results that indicated the study participants failed to hold all other non-tested features constant. Key Take-Away: Choose nonpatented features reliably. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) 39
40 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: VIRNETX V. CISCO Expert precluded from substituting a survey result for actual sales data to show apportionment because the expert made no attempts to remove sales of noninfringing items from the sales data. The expert reduced the revenue of entire products by 70% apportionment factor; a factor derived from a single survey which found 70% of customers valued VoIP security. This apportionment factor is a poor substitute for the type of analysis one should undertake when parsing an alleged infringer s profits for patented versus unpatented features. Key Take-Away: Avoid making a survey something that it is not. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2013) 40
41 USES OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES IN PATENT LITIGATION: APPLE I & APPLE II Apple I: Samsung moved to exclude the willingness-to-pay opinions of expert hired by Apple to design and conduct two surveys (one for smartphones, one for tablets) to determine what price premium, if any, Samsung customers are willing to pay for the features associated with the patents at issue. Expert s failure to disclose written records of underlying interviews used to select appropriate distraction features does not render survey testimony unreliable. Under-inclusiveness and clarity of the survey goes to weight, not admissibility. Apple II: Samsung moved to exclude the survey expert who designed and performed the conjoint surveys to determine the demand for the patented features at issue in the case. First step in expert s analysis was same as in Apple I and although conjoint technique in the expert s second step had not been used in the same way before, it was adequately supported by marketing research literature indicating acceptance of the technique used by Apple s survey. (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2012) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) 41
42 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES Properly-constructed consumer surveys can provide highly persuasive evidence of patent value. Serious flaws in survey design and implementation can lead to exclusion of survey evidence. Vulnerable to attack if not tied to the patented technology and consumer demand for the inventive feature. Surveys conducted for litigation purposes often are very different than those conducted by a company for nonlitigation marketing purposes. 42
43 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: ENSURE EXPERT FAMILIARITY Trial courts may choose to exclude direct testimony by the survey expert when the damages expert will be relying on survey data. The party s damages expert should be in the position of presenting evidence about the consumer survey, and, in describing the underlying methodology used in the survey. The survey expert should provide detailed information as to the design of the survey instrument, implementation of the survey, and analysis of the survey data. 43
44 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: ENSURE EXPERT FAMILIARITY The damages expert should be familiar with details necessary to ensure the validity and reliability of the survey data. The Braun Corp. v. Vantage Mobility Int l (N.D. Ind. Jun. 21, 2010) Defendant s damages expert relied on a histogram that was derived from a consumer survey. District court struck portions of testimony by defendant s damages expert relating to the histogram. The damages expert s report failed to disclose details of the underlying survey. The expert did not independently establish the validity and reliability of the underlying survey data. 44
45 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: ENSURE EXPERT FAMILIARITY Proponents of survey evidence should carefully consider how such evidence might be used against the proffering party. Lear Automotive v. Johnson Controls (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2011) Defendant provided its damages expert with a survey directed to assess the frequency of use of patented feature in accused garage door systems. Defendant s damages expert relied on the survey to calculate the royalty rate. The plaintiff used the same survey to meet its burden of proof on direct infringement. Over Defendant s objection, the District court found the data admissible as an adoptive admission. 45
46 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: DIRECT THE SURVEY TO THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY Consumer survey evidence is frequently challenged on ground that it does not specifically address the issues in dispute. Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2011) District court excluded testimony re: survey of internal vs. external antennas, because survey was not directed at specific features of claimed technology. Patent-in-suit did not address internal antennas, but rather multi-band functionality and reduced size. LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2011) District court excluded expert testimony re: survey of royalty rates in computer component industry, because survey was not limited to comparable technologies. 46
47 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: PROPERLY DEFINE THE SURVEY POPULATION Ensure that survey participants are selected from a population encompassing the correct survey participants. Example: if the goal of the survey is to determine business attitudes regarding an accused product... Survey is over inclusive if it includes non-business purchasers. Survey is likely under inclusive if it fails to include certain types of business purchasers. 47
48 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: PROPERLY DEFINE THE SURVEY POPULATION Case examples: Hodgdon Powder Co. v. Alliant Techsystems (D. Kan. 2007) Survey population consisting only of plaintiff s customers was too narrow and should have included purchasers of competing products across the industry. Leelanau Wine Cellars v. Black & Red (S.D. Ind. 2003) Survey conducted by plaintiff in shopping malls was overbroad. Although plaintiff sold products through variety of channels, defendant only sold product through specific, narrow trade channel. District court gave the survey minimal weight. 48
49 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL Utilize Procedures to Ensure a Fair Sample of the Population. Ensure that the chosen sample accurately reflects a cross section of the total population. Clearly Define the Survey Objectives. When commissioning a survey, carefully define survey objectives and tailor questions to squarely address those objectives. 49
50 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL Determine an Appropriate Mode of Data Collection for the Survey. In-person interviews Telephone surveys Mail surveys Internet surveys Use Clear, Precise, and Unbiased Questions. 50
51 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: CHECK YOUR WORK Employ Appropriate Controls to Ensure the Objectivity of the Survey. Attorneys should avoid direct participation in interview and results tabulation process. Courts may exclude survey data where attorneys have undue influence. United States v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (S.D. Ind. 2003) District court troubled that defense counsel sent letter that could be interpreted as pressure or guidance to survey participants before receiving the survey. Conduct a Post-Survey Validation of Data. Employ Procedures to Ensure that Survey Methodology and Data are Properly Recorded. 51
52 AVOIDING COMMON CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC ANALYSES: KEY TAKE-AWAYS Federal Circuit trend: damages awards must be supported by evidence that is firmly rooted in sound economic theory and tied to the patented invention s footprint in the marketplace. Economic analyses can be used to demonstrate or refute the evidentiary link between the patented invention and consumer demand. Economic analyses must be tied to the patented technology at issue. 52
53 Q & A Christopher K. Larus Chair, Minneapolis IP Litigation Group CKLarus@rkmc.com Bryan J. Mechell IP Litigation Group BJMechell@rkmc.com Shankar Iyer Vice President, Cornerstone Research SIyer@cornerstone.com
Leveraging Technology in the Courtroom: Planning and Creating Winning Digital Trial Presentations
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging Technology in the Courtroom: Planning and Creating Winning Digital Trial Presentations Strategies for Using 3D Animation, Trial Software,
More informationHybrid Corporations: Emerging Business Structures
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Hybrid Corporations: Emerging Business Structures Evaluating Flexible Purpose, Social Purpose and Benefit Corporations; Legal Considerations for
More informationInternational Trademarks: Monitoring, Policing Third-Party Marks, Evaluating Infringements, Pursuing Enforcement
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A International Trademarks: Monitoring, Policing Third-Party Marks, Evaluating Infringements, Pursuing Enforcement TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2017 1pm
More informationJoint Bidding Arrangements With Competitors: Evaluating and Minimizing Antitrust Risks
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Joint Bidding Arrangements With Competitors: Evaluating and Minimizing Antitrust Risks Avoiding Bid Rigging Allegations and Violations Arising From
More informationPersonal Injury Claims for Uber and Lyft Accidents: Navigating Complex Liability and Insurance Coverage Issues
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Personal Injury Claims for Uber and Lyft Accidents: Navigating Complex Liability and Insurance Coverage Issues WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017 1pm Eastern
More informationMeal and Rest Break Compliance After the Brinker Decision Navigating Wage and Hour Implications for Employers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Meal and Rest Break Compliance After the Brinker Decision Navigating Wage and Hour Implications for Employers THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012 1pm Eastern
More informationDOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines and Review Process
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines and Review Process Practice Pointers and Lessons Learned From Antitrust Enforcement Trends THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013 1pm
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A ITAR and EAR Compliance Review and Investigations i Conducting Internal Audits and Evaluating Whether to Disclose Potential Violations to Mitigate
More informationWhen And How To Use Conjoint Analysis For Patent Damages
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com When And How To Use Conjoint Analysis For
More informationWarnings-Based Claims in Product Liability Navigating U.S. Standards for Warnings; Leveraging the Requirements in Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Warnings-Based Claims in Product Liability Navigating U.S. Standards for Warnings; Leveraging the Requirements in Litigation WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25,
More informationConsignments and Reclamation Rights: Documentation, UCC Rules and Treatment in Bankruptcy
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Consignments and Reclamation Rights: Documentation, UCC Rules and Treatment in Bankruptcy WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationEmployer Strategies for Responding to Employee Demand Letters: Legal, Strategic and Ethical Considerations
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Employer Strategies for Responding to Employee Demand Letters: Legal, Strategic and Ethical Considerations Evaluating Whether to Settle or Take
More informationPresenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Live, Interactive Q&A
Presenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Live, Interactive Q&A Drafting Position Statements to Mitigate EEOC Full-Scale Investigations and Lawsuits Strategic Techniques to
More informationMedicare and Medicaid Audits Using Statistical Sampling and Extrapolation: Challenging Methods and Results
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Medicare and Medicaid Audits Using Statistical Sampling and Extrapolation: Challenging Methods and Results THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Expanding Scope of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction and Liability: Impact of Recent Circuit Court Opinions New Standard for Determining When Liability
More informationValuing Physician Practice Ancillary Services: Overcoming Challenges for Healthcare Counsel
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Valuing Physician Practice Ancillary Services: Overcoming Challenges for Healthcare Counsel TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationFinancing Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure, Transportation, Energy and Redevelopment Projects
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Financing Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure, Transportation, Energy and Redevelopment Projects Structuring Traditional and Alternative
More informationNEPA and the Impact of the FAST Act: Navigating the New Permitting and Review Process
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A NEPA and the Impact of the FAST Act: Navigating the New Permitting and Review Process Leveraging Opportunities Under the National Environmental
More informationCase5:12-cv LHK Document737 Filed08/14/13 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 APPLE INC., a California corporation v. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation;
More informationFor this program, attendees must listen to the audio over the telephone.
Presenting a live 110 minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Sales and Use Tax Audit Strategies Anticipating Auditor Requirements for Documentation, Samples, Nexus and More THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011
More informationSampling Strategies for Circular A-133 Audits:
Presenting a live 110-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Sampling Strategies for Circular A-133 Audits: Ensuring Compliance and Internal Controls Selecting a Methodology, Developing an Audit Sampling
More informationEnsuring Validity and Admissibility of Consumer Surveys By Rebecca Kirk Fair and Laura O Laughlin March 8, 2017
Ensuring Validity and Admissibility of Consumer Surveys By Rebecca Kirk Fair and Laura O Laughlin March 8, 2017 Consumer surveys have been offered as evidence in trademark infringement matters for decades.
More informationAlternative Fees for Litigation: Collaborating with Clients to Structure Non-Hourly Billing Arrangements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Alternative Fees for Litigation: Collaborating with Clients to Structure Non-Hourly Billing Arrangements WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2016 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure for Commercial Property: New State and Local Mandates Implications for Construction, Sale, Leasing and Operation
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Position Statements to Mitigate EEOC Full-Scale Investigations and Lawsuits Strategic Techniques to Address Claims of Failure to Hire,
More informationLicensing and Development Agreements Crafting Provisions to Allocate Risk, Avoid Common Pitfalls, and Minimize Liability
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Structuring Software and Technology Licensing and Development Agreements Crafting Provisions to Allocate Risk, Avoid Common Pitfalls, and Minimize
More informationNew Proxy Requirements for 2018: Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Proxy Requirements for 2018: Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Compliance With New EU GDPR: Steps Investment Funds, Banks, Advisers and Financial Intermediaries Should Take Now Revising Service Agreements and
More informationAgile Software Development Agreements: Navigating the Complex Contracting Issues
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Agile Software Development Agreements: Navigating the Complex Contracting Issues Evaluating Agile vs. Waterfall Development; Structuring Provisions
More information2016 UPDATE: The Role of Surveys in Assessing Damages in Patent Infringement Cases
2016 UPDATE: The Role of Surveys in Assessing Gelb, An Endeavor Management Company 2700 Post Oak Blvd Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77056 P + 281.759.3600 F + 281.759.3607 www.gelbconsulting.com 1. Background
More informationFor this program, attendees must listen to the audio over the telephone.
Presenting a live 110 minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Employee Benefit Plan Audit Peer Reviews Preparing for Risk Assessment, Control Document Inspection, and Other Peer Reviewer Concerns TUESDAY,
More informationTrademark Enforcement: Analyzing Claims, Crafting Cease and Desist Letters, Monitoring Marks, and More
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Trademark Enforcement: Analyzing Claims, Crafting Cease and Desist Letters, Monitoring Marks, and More TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationIntellectual Property: Economics
Intellectual Property: Economics When It Has To Be Right To prevent the hypothetical from lapsing into pure speculation, this court requires sound economic proof of the nature of the market and likely
More informationSEMINAR SERIES NEW SESSIONS. SECURITIES ERISA and fiduciary liability ANTITRUST ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE
SEMINAR SERIES 2018 2019 NEW SESSIONS SECURITIES ERISA and fiduciary liability ANTITRUST ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE M&A LITIGATION Share price; disclosure; and governance WHITE COLLAR and SEC LITIGATION INTELLECTUAL
More informationThomas F. Lebens Managing Partner, West Coast Operations Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP. November 13, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP
Thomas F. Lebens Managing Partner, West Coast Operations Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP 2015 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Start With a Plan Start with a plan Business Strategy Intellectual Property
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Prop 65 Revisions: Liability Allocation, New Safe Harbor Warning, Internet Warnings Compliance Challenges for Manufacturers, Distributors, Retailers
More informationAvoiding Antitrust Violations in Competitor Collaborations
presents Avoiding Antitrust Violations in Competitor Collaborations Lessons From FTC/DOJ Enforcement Actions and Litigation A Live 90-Minute Audio Conference with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features:
More informationBlockchain Applications in Commercial Finance: Loan Syndications, Servicing, Swaps, Trade Finance and More
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Blockchain Applications in Commercial Finance: Loan Syndications, Servicing, Swaps, Trade Finance and More TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2018 1pm Eastern
More informationUSPTO Examiner Interview Strategies: Preparing for and Conducting Interviews to Advance Patent Prosecution
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A USPTO Examiner Interview Strategies: Preparing for and Conducting Interviews to Advance Patent Prosecution TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationA Quick Guide To Patent Damages Discovery
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Quick Guide To Patent Damages Discovery
More informationPortfolio Media. Inc. Determining Reasonable Royalties With Analytical Approach
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Law360, New York (April 13, 2017, 12:28 PM
More informationJuly 10, :00 PM (ET)
July 10, 2018 2:00 PM (ET) Our thanks to today s sponsor: How to Build Diverse Teams With the Power of Global Mobility WORLDWIDE ERC WEBINAR DISCLAIMER The views, opinions, and information expressed during
More informationRenewable Energy Certificates and Carbon Offsets Strategies to Negotiate Offsets and Structure REC Transactions
presents Renewable Energy Certificates and Carbon Offsets Strategies to Negotiate Offsets and Structure REC Transactions A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features:
More informationVendor Agreements and the New EU GDPR Steps to Take Now
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Vendor Agreements and the New EU GDPR Steps to Take Now Complying With the EU General Data Protection and Privacy Regulation TUESDAY, JANUARY 30,
More informationThe Value of Personal Information to Consumers of Online Services: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment
19 June 2014 The Value of Personal Information to Consumers of Online Services: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment By Sarah Butler and Garrett Glasgow Recent years have seen rapid growth in privacy-related
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ------------------------------------- BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ------------------------------------- FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, Petitioner, v. HOSPIRA,
More informationDeceit and Denial: The Role Surveys Play in False Advertising and Trademark Litigation
Deceit and Denial: The Role Surveys Play in False Advertising and Trademark Litigation Session 1 Surveying the Truth: False Advertising and Trademark Litigation ABA s Section of Antitrust Law Advertising
More informationPCAOB Auditing Standard 7 and AICPA SQCS No. 7 Mastering Engagement Quality and Quality Control Reviews
presents PCAOB Auditing Standard 7 and AICPA SQCS No. 7 Mastering Engagement Quality and Quality Control Reviews A Live 110-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A Today's panel features: Dean
More informationCommission Pay for Employees: Structuring Agreements and Defending Claims Absent a Contract
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Commission Pay for Employees: Structuring Agreements and Defending Claims Absent a Contract Leveraging Plaintiff and Defense Theories in Unpaid
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Building Information Modeling Technology: Identifying and Mitigating Legal Risks Evaluating BIM's Impact on Construction Projects, Potential Liability
More informationI/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al Doc. 438 Att. 11 EXHIBIT K. Dockets.Justia.com
I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al Doc. 438 Att. 11 EXHIBIT K Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA I/P ENGINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. AOL, INC., GOOGLE
More informationEmployee Benefit Plan Audit Peer Reviews
Presenting a live 110-minute teleconference with interactive Q&A Employee Benefit Plan Audit Peer Reviews Preparing for Risk Assessment, Control Document Inspection, and Other Peer Reviewer Concerns THURSDAY,
More informationStructuring Trademark Clearance Opinions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Structuring Trademark Clearance Opinions Assessing Search Results to Identify Infringements, Overcoming Clearance Challenges, Preparing Opinions
More informationIntent to Use Trademark Applications: Pros and Cons, Demonstrating ITU, Converting to Actual Use
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Intent to Use Trademark Applications: Pros and Cons, Demonstrating ITU, Converting to Actual Use THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationUsing Conjoint Analysis To Apportion Patent Damages 1
Using Conjoint Analysis To Apportion Patent Damages 1 J. Gregory Sidak* & Jeremy O. Skog** Introduction To support their calculations of reasonable-royalty damages in patent infringement cases, experts
More informationMatthew F. Soccoli Short Fund Manager McIntire Investment Institute October 7, 2003
Palm Incorporated Matthew F. Soccoli Short Fund Manager McIntire Investment Institute October 7, 2003 Company Mission Focus is on creating devices handheld devices that manage and access information rather
More informationProduct Configuration Trade Dress. #designlaw2016
Product onfiguration Trade Dress #designlaw2016 Trade Dress Infringement Erik S. Maurer Pepperidge Farm s Goldfish racker Design Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 188, 205 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
More informationTHE TYRANNY OF MARKET SHARES: INCORPORATING SURVEY-BASED EVIDENCE INTO MERGER ANALYSIS
THE TYRANNY OF MARKET SHARES: INCORPORATING SURVEY-BASED EVIDENCE INTO MERGER ANALYSIS REPRINTED FROM: CORPORATE DISPUTES MAGAZINE JUL-SEP 2018 ISSUE corporate CDdisputes Visit the website to request a
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Agile Software Development Agreements: Navigating Complex Contracting Issues Evaluating Agile vs. Waterfall Development; Structuring Provisions
More informationCase 4:13-md YGR Document 2197 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 8
Case :-md-00-ygr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates to: All Indirect Purchaser
More informationAntitrust Risks of Association-Sponsored Market Research
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Antitrust Risks of Association-Sponsored Market Research Avoiding Compliance Pitfalls of Information Exchanges and Surveys WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11,
More informationFinal New DOL Overtime Rule: Strategies to Mitigate Impact of 100% Increase in White-Collar Exemption
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Final New DOL Overtime Rule: Strategies to Mitigate Impact of 100% Increase in White-Collar Exemption WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al Doc. 976 Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 976 Filed 09/03/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AMGEN INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationA Littler Mendelson Report
A Littler Mendelson Report InSight An Analysis of Recent Developments & Trends In This Issue: July 2010 The administrative exemption is one of the most frequently litigated wage and hour issues, and two
More informationTwo Recent Decisions Analyze Topics Important to All In-House Lawyers: Carefully Identifying Their Clients and Internally Communicating by
Two Recent Decisions Analyze Topics Important to All In-House Lawyers: Carefully Identifying Their Clients and Internally Communicating by E-Mail Thomas E. Spahn August 27, 2007 Two very recent cases should
More informationClean Air Act's PSD Program Under Scrutiny In Courts
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Clean Air Act's PSD Program Under Scrutiny In Courts
More informationMEASURING CONSUMER CONFUSION THROUGH ONLINE SURVEYS
MEASURING CONSUMER CONFUSION THROUGH ONLINE SURVEYS Practical Guide to Survey Acceptance Hal Poret Senior Vice President ORC International (formerly ORC Guideline) 625 Avenue of the Americas New York,
More informationCase 5:15-md LHK Document 857 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 5
Case :-md-0-lhk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP EVE CERVANTEZ (SBN 0) ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com Post Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () -0 COHEN
More informationLeveraging USPTO Examiner Count System: Efficiently Prosecuting Patents, Lowering Prosecution Costs
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging USPTO Examiner Count System: Efficiently Prosecuting Patents, Lowering Prosecution Costs THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2016 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationChallenging gcompetitors' Comparative Advertising Evaluating Legal Options to Respond to False or Misleading Marketing
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging gcompetitors' Comparative Advertising Evaluating Legal Options to Respond to False or Misleading Marketing THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2012
More informationDrafting Pharmacy Benefit Manager Contracts: Controlling Costs, Avoiding Hidden Fees
Presenting a live 60-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Pharmacy Benefit Manager Contracts: Controlling Costs, Avoiding Hidden Fees Navigating Prescription Drug Pricing Complexities, Selecting
More informationEngineering Law. Professor Barich Class 13
Engineering Law Professor Barich Class 13 Reminders Today Review Quiz #4 Finish Class 11 and 12 Lecture Class 13 Lecture Quiz #5 Review Quiz #5 after class if desired Next class Law in an Engineering Career
More informationSocial Networks and Antitrust: The Problem of Diverse Consumer Preferences
Social Networks and Antitrust: The Problem of Diverse Consumer Preferences Frank Pasquale Schering-Plough Professor in Health Care Regulation and Enforcement, Seton Hall Law Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information
More informationFulbright Forefront. The NEW OFCCP: Preparing for Changes and Handling an Audit in 2013
Fulbright Forefront The NEW OFCCP: Preparing for Changes and Handling an Audit in 2013 Continuing Education Information We have applied for one hour of California, Minnesota, Texas and Virginia CLE, New
More informationEEOC Pay Equity Enforcement
EEOC Pay Equity Enforcement January 24, 2013 Paul C. Evans Blair J. Robinson www.morganlewis.com Agenda EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan Enforcing equal pay laws EEOC Investigations and Enforcement Investigative
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ILLUMINA, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATERA, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-si ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 0 Before the Court is
More informationFTC Complaint Against Intel
Economists Incorporated WINTER 2010 A B R I E F A N A L Y S I S O F P O L I C Y A N D L I T I G A T I O N FTC Complaint Against Intel Allison M. Holt In December, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed
More informationCase 9:06-cv RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION E.E.O.C., Plaintiff, v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. Defendant.
More informationRESPONDING TO A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER ALLEGING TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 1. By: Joshua J. Borger, Esq. 2. May 30, 2017
125 South Market Street, Suite 1200 San Jose, California 95113-2288 Phone: 408.288.8100 Fax: 408.288.9409 Web: www.gedlaw.com RESPONDING TO A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER ALLEGING TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 1 By:
More informationAntitrust Challenges to Most Favored Nation and Competitor Parity Clauses in the U.S. and Europe
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Antitrust Challenges to Most Favored Nation and Competitor Parity Clauses in the U.S. and Europe Assessing MFNs and Parity Provisions for Antitrust
More informationDecision. SKE International, Inc. Matter of: B ; B File: Date: June 5, 2008
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Decision Comptroller General of the United States DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
More informationLEXSEE 445 F. SUPP. 2D 1174
Page 1 LEXSEE 445 F. SUPP. 2D 1174 FRED 26 IMPORTERS, INC. and CHRISTINE SAGMIT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants.
More informationFed. Circ. Clarifies Law For Functional Antibody Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Fed. Circ. Clarifies Law For Functional Antibody
More informationAn Examination of New Theories on Price Effects of Cross-Market Hospital Mergers
An Examination of New Theories on Price Effects of Cross-Market Hospital Mergers David A. Argue and Lona Fowdur 1 Economists Incorporated, Washington, DC Traditionally, mergers that involve combinations
More informationCritical Research Steps and Core Principles of Claim Substantiation
Critical Research Steps and Core Principles of Claim Substantiation Dr. Bruce Isaacson, President of MMR Strategy Group 16501 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 601, Encino, CA 91436 Phone (818) 464-2400 Fax (818)
More informationAntitrust Trouble Through Aggressive Pricing: Let s Count the Ways
Westlaw Journal Antitrust Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 22, issue 6 / october 2014 Expert Analysis Antitrust Trouble Through Aggressive Pricing: Let s Count
More informationIntellectual Property ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL EXPERTS
Intellectual Property ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL EXPERTS Experience In a fast-changing and increasingly competitive global economy, intellectual property has become a crucial factor shaping the economic successes
More informationPaper No Entered: July 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Entered: July 20, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COMTECH MOBILE DATACOM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VEHICLE
More informationAICPA Peer Review Program Compliance: Responding to Latest Developments
FOR LIVE PROGRAM ONLY AICPA Peer Review Program Compliance: Responding to Latest Developments WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2017, 1:00-2:50 pm Eastern IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE LIVE PROGRAM This program is approved
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Employee Leave Under FMLA, ADA and Workers' Comp: Navigating Overlapping and Conflicting Leave Laws Avoiding Pitfalls With Accommodation, Retaliation/Discrimination;
More informationClass Action Settlements Today: Update on Key Trouble Spots. Thomas M. Hefferon January 24, Goodwin Procter LLP
Class Action Settlements Today: Update on Key Trouble Spots Thomas M. Hefferon January 24, 2017 2017. Goodwin Procter LLP Trend of Increased Scrutiny Continues Settlements have been targeted frequently
More informationAVOIDING NATURAL DISASTERS
AVOIDING NATURAL DISASTERS Labeling and advertising litigation targeting the presence (or absence) of GMOs in foods. William F. Tarantino June 13, 2017 Overview Brief history of the labeling litigation
More informationAIPLA TRADEMARK BOOT CAMP June 10, 2011 Richard C. Gilmore. Analyzing Trademark Search Reports
AIPLA TRADEMARK BOOT CAMP June 10, 2011 Richard C. Gilmore Analyzing Trademark Search Reports I. Analyzing Trademark Search Reports The analysis of a trademark search report should establish whether a
More informationAetna-Humana and Algorithmic Market Definition in the Guidelines
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m O c t o b e r 2 0 1 7 1 Aetna-Humana and Algorithmic Market Definition in the Guidelines Kostis Hatzitaskos, Nicholas Hill, and Brad T. Howells
More informationLEGAL SERVICE DESK SUPPORT
2nd Edition September 2011 THE GURU S GUIDE FOR LEGAL SERVICE DESK SUPPORT LAW FIRM SPECIFIC METRICS & KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1 GURU S GUIDE: DATA & SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS As was the case with the original
More informationJury Selection in Employment Litigation: Preparing for Voir Dire, Identifying Bias, Leveraging Strikes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Jury Selection in Employment Litigation: Preparing for Voir Dire, Identifying Bias, Leveraging Strikes WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationGetting ready for 2019
Getting ready for 2019 Quick wins to improve your Global Mobility program in the coming year 2018 Worldwide ERC December 11, 2018 11 a.m. EST/4 p.m. GMT Our thanks to today s sponsor: Getting ready for
More informationBrand Valuation of Intangible Assets: Hot Topics of 2014
From the SelectedWorks of Scott D Hakala Winter February, 2014 Brand Valuation of Intangible Assets: Hot Topics of 2014 Scott D Hakala Available at: https://works.bepress.com/scott_hakala/5/ Brand Valuation
More informationCrafting a Pricing Strategy That Works
Crafting a Pricing Strategy That Works Presented by: Bryan T. Peña, Senior Vice President, Contingent Workforce Strategies, CCWP Jason Ezratty, President & Founder, Brightfield Strategies Thursday June
More informationPaper 11 Tel: Entered: September 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 11, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAFEWAY, INC. and THE KROGER CO., Petitioner,
More information