BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Patent

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, June 10, 2021

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$347.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will guide counsel on patent litigation in the Western District of Texas. The panel will examine key considerations and discuss strategies to navigate litigation issues from case commencement through post- trial motions.

Faculty

Nathan C. Brunette
Partner
Stoel Rives LLP

Mr. Brunette focuses his practice on patent and IP litigation as well as complex business disputes. He has represented clients in state and federal courts, private arbitration, and Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy proceedings. Mr. Brunette’s experience includes litigating patent, trademark, trade dress, licensing, cybersquatting, trade secret, civil antitrust, and commercial matters. In addition, he counsels clients about the protection, enforcement, and monetization of technology and IP assets in the context of business opportunities and transactions.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
J. Stephen Ravel
Partner
Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP

Mr. Ravel has more than 35 years’ experience handling litigation matters at trial and on appeal. He currently defends some of the world’s largest technology companies in patent matters spanning a number of subject matter areas including semiconductors, memory, data storage, smartphone functions, point of sale payment and security systems, medical devices, multi-mode security and mobile and online banking. Mr. Ravel’s patent practice is currently primarily sited in the nation’s newest and fastest-growing major patent venue—Western District of Texas, Waco Division.  He also handles other litigation matters involving breach of contract, business torts, regulatory takings, lender liability, breach of trust matters, and environmental matters, among others. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The Western District of Texas saw an explosion of patent cases in 2020 when it became the most popular patent litigation jurisdiction. The increase occurred after the September 2018 appointment of Judge Albright, who hears almost all the patent cases.

Judge Albright has put in place standing orders that impact strategy for patent owners and alleged infringers alike. One of these standing orders provides an accelerated (18 months) time to trial. Another standing order requires all venue motions to be determined before claim construction. Further, Judge Albright does not typically grant transfer motions to accommodate witnesses and/or the location of documents, including source code.

As a result of these factors and other considerations, both plaintiffs and defendants must have a strategy in place to navigate patent litigation in the Western District of Texas.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent litigators examines patent practice in the Western District of Texas. The panel will address key considerations and discuss strategies to navigate litigation issues, including venue, discovery, claim construction, Section 101 motions, other dispositive motions, petitions for IPR, and the jury trial itself.

Outline

  1. Patent practice in the Western District of Texas: key milestones established by the court’s numerous standing orders
  2. Venue
  3. Claim construction
  4. Discovery
  5. Section 101 motions/petitions for IPR
  6. Dispositive motions
  7. Trial logistics
  8. Recent decisions
  9. Best practices

Benefits

The panel will review these and other important issues:

  • A comprehensive description of how Judge Albright’s standing orders, FAQs, standard operating procedures, and rules of thumb impact all aspects of a case in his court
  • What does the accelerated timeline to trial mean for a defendant's ability to get a petition for IPR instituted?
  • What best practices should defendants employ knowing Judge Albright has denied all Section 101 motions?