Event Title
Start Date
12-9-2014 4:30 PM
End Date
12-9-2014 5:20 PM
Description
Preview of the Upcoming Term
Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank (Whether the court or the jury determines if use of an older mark may be tacked to a newer one.)
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. (Whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes respondent from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, and, if not, what deference should the trial court give to the TTAB finding.)
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires—and as the panel explicitly did in this case—or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.)
Moderator:
Professor Chris Schmidt, Director, Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS), IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Panelists:
David Frederick, Counsel to Aereo Inc., Partner, Kellogg Huber Hansen PLLC
Jameson Jones, Counsel to Static Control Components, Partner, Bartlit Beck LLP
Professor Peter Menell, University of California Berkeley School of Law
Dominic Perella, Counsel to Highmark Inc., Partner, Hogan Lovells LLP
Constantine Trela, Jr., Counsel to Alice Corp.; Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Thomas Saunders, Counsel to POM Wonderful, Partner, WilmerHale LLP
Mark Perry, Counsel to CLS Bank International, Partner, Gibson Dunn LLP
Runtime: 50:59
Preview of the Upcoming Term
Preview of the Upcoming Term
Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank (Whether the court or the jury determines if use of an older mark may be tacked to a newer one.)
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. (Whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes respondent from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, and, if not, what deference should the trial court give to the TTAB finding.)
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires—and as the panel explicitly did in this case—or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.)
Moderator:
Professor Chris Schmidt, Director, Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS), IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Panelists:
David Frederick, Counsel to Aereo Inc., Partner, Kellogg Huber Hansen PLLC
Jameson Jones, Counsel to Static Control Components, Partner, Bartlit Beck LLP
Professor Peter Menell, University of California Berkeley School of Law
Dominic Perella, Counsel to Highmark Inc., Partner, Hogan Lovells LLP
Constantine Trela, Jr., Counsel to Alice Corp.; Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Thomas Saunders, Counsel to POM Wonderful, Partner, WilmerHale LLP
Mark Perry, Counsel to CLS Bank International, Partner, Gibson Dunn LLP
Runtime: 50:59