University of Texas Law logo Update your account
  • Sign in or Join Account and Briefcase
    Not a member yet? Sign up Forgot password?
  • Accredited CLE
    Live Conferences Studio Webcasts eConferences eCourses Hooked on CLE Answer Bar
  • Research & Self-Study
    Materials eLibrary
  • Subscriptions
    MCLE On-Demand and eLibrary
  • Browse by Practice Area
    Administrative Admiralty and Maritime Alternative Dispute Resolution Appellate - Civil and Criminal Bankruptcy Business Entities Civil Rights Construction Corporate Counsel Criminal Cybersecurity Elder Law and Guardianship Employment Entertainment and Sports Law Environmental Essentials Ethics Exempt Organizations / Nonprofits Family Government Enforcement / White Collar Crime Healthcare Immigration Insurance Intellectual Property / Patent Law International Law Practice Management Litigation M&A and Securities Oil, Gas and Energy Practice Skills Real Estate Renewable Energy School Self-Care Taxation Technology Technology for Lawyers Trusts and Estates / Probate Water
  • Search
  • Shopping Cart

What are you searching for?

Skip to main content
UT Law CLE logo
  • Overview /
  • Schedule /
  • Faculty /
  • Credit Info /
  • Key Dates /
  • Venue /
Register or Buy ticket icon Buy
Conference art

9th Annual

Advanced Patent Law Institute

Alexandria Jan 23-24, 2014 United States Patent and Trademark Office
Conference Concluded
Buy
Related products: Materials

PRESENTED BY
The University of Texas School of Law
The United States Patent and Trademark Office
George Mason University School of Law

Brochure thumbnail
Download Brochure (PDF)

Overview

The 9th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office offers a unique opportunity to join USPTO senior staff, leading practitioners, academics and members of the federal judiciary from a variety of courts and forums area for two days of presentations on the latest developments in patent law, including:  

  • The impact of key patentable subject matter cases in both software and life sciences
  • Current issues in antitrust and FRAND patents
  • Post-grant proceedings and strategies one year after AIA; plus practice tips from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Developments in claim construction and potential impact of Lighting Ballast
  • The new landscape for U.S. design patent law and the implications of the U.S.’s likely membership in the Hague System
  • “First-to-File” final rules and the USPTO’s interpretation of the new Section 102
  • Strategies and tactics for dealing with the increasing influence of patent NPEs
  • The popular Judicial Panel, moderated this year by Former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, Paul R. Michel
  • Earn up to 2.00 hours of ethics including a Keynote Presentation by David Hricik of Mercer University School of Law—Ethics in Doing Deals and Settling IP Suits

The Institute is presented by The University of Texas School of Law, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and George Mason University School of Law.

  • Buy

Event Schedule

Program is subject to change.
All times are Central Time Zone.

  • Day 1 January 23, 2014
  • Day 2 January 24, 2014
  • Time
    Credit
    Subject
    Speaker
  • Thursday Morning, Jan. 23, 2014
    Presiding Officer:
    Hon. James D. Smith, Chief Judge, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
  • 7:30 am
    Registration Opens
    Includes continental breakfast.

  • 8:15 am
    Welcoming Remarks

  • 8:30 am
    0.50 hr
    Patentable Subject Matter: Life Sciences
    Review of the Supreme Court decisions, Mayo v. Prometheus and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics; plus related Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidance on the patent eligibility of biotech and personalized medicine inventions.

    Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff, Foley & Lardner LLP - Washington, DC

  • 9:00 am
    0.50 hr
    Patentable Subject Matter: Software and Business Methods
    Discussion of the patent-eligibility of software and business methods, with analysis of CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation and other recent decisions.

    Christopher A. Cotropia, Intellectual Property Institute, University of Richmond School of Law - Richmond, VA

  • 9:30 am
    0.75 hr
    Functional Claiming
    Patent attorneys sometimes broadly claim inventions in terms of the functions that they perform, rather than reciting detailed structural features. This can lead to problems during the patent application process or later in litigation. The USPTO has recently provided additional training to patent examiners providing guidance in this area.

    Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
    Bradley C. Wright, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. - Washington, DC

  • 10:15 am
    Break

  • 10:30 am
    0.50 hr
    ITC Developments: Standards-Essential Patents and the Domestic Industry Requirement

    The United States Trade Representative’s recommendations concerning the ITC exclusion orders issued against Apple and Samsung, as well as recent developments in the application of the ITC’s domestic industry requirement as it relates to patent assertion and NPEs. 

    Lore Unt, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
    T. Cy Walker, Kenyon & Kenyon - Washington, DC

  • 11:00 am
    0.50 hr
    Antitrust and FRAND Patents: Development and Current Issues
    A focus on Judge Robart’s analysis of factors in evaluating rate setting in FRAND cases, the recent GAO report on Standard Setting Organizations and the availability of injunctive relief in cases involving standard essential patents.

    Robert L. Stoll, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP - Washington, DC

  • 11:30 am
    0.50 hr
    The New Landscape for Design Patents
    Examination of the new landscape that is taking shape in the field of U.S. design patent law, including new matter/written description in light of In re Owens, obviousness and functionality in light of High Point Design v. Buyers Direct, and post grant proceedings and claim construction in view of ATAS International v. Centria. Also, a look at recent international developments and the implications of the US moving closer to officially being a member of the Hague system.

    Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - Washington, DC
    William LaMarca, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
    Commentator:
    Amy J. Nelson, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA

  • 12:00 pm
    0.50 hr
    Patent Law Treaty Implementation

    In December 2013, the U.S. becomes a party to the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), which harmonizes and streamlines formal procedural requirements pertaining to the filing and processing of patent applications. Review the changes to the patent law and USPTO’s rules of practice that were made in accordance with the U.S. becoming a party to the PLT.

    Robert Bahr, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA

  • 12:30 pm
    Pick Up Lunch
    Included in registration.

  • Thursday Afternoon, Jan. 23, 2014
    Presiding Officer:
    Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law - Arlington, VA
  • Keynote Luncheon Presentation
  • 12:50 pm
    0.50 hr
    USPTO Update

    Peggy Focarino, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA

  • 1:20 pm
    Break

  • 1:30 pm
    1.00 hr
    First-Inventor-To-File: Problems, Ambiguities and Practical Solutions
    The new Section 102 is shorter if not simpler than the former establishment, though not without subtleties and ambiguities that can be a trap for the unwary. The USPTO’s interpretation of the new Section 102 is presented, along with alternative interpretations and practical solutions for practitioners for addressing the problems and ambiguities.

    Moderator:
    Dale S. Lazar, DLA Piper LLP US - Reston, VA
    Panelists:
    Kathleen Fonda, Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
    Brad D. Pedersen, Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. - Minneapolis, MN

  • 2:30 pm
    0.50 hr
    Obviousness
    This presentation aims to reaffirm the importance of evaluating objective evidence in the obviousness analysis. Objective evidence of nonobviousness is too often treated as ‘secondary considerations.'

    Michael W. O'Neill, Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg LLP - Washington, DC

  • 3:00 pm
    Break

  • 3:15 pm
    0.75 hr
    Divided Infringement After Akamai
    Discussion of the Akamai decision and how it impacts litigation strategy.

    Gianni Minutoli, DLA Piper LLP US - Washington, DC
    Phillip B. Philbin, Haynes and Boone, LLP - Dallas, TX

  • 4:00 pm
    0.75 hr
    Patent Damages Today - but What about Tomorrow?
    Review of recent Federal Circuit Court decisions providing guidance on acceptable patent damages methodology, with highlights of District Court orders giving insight into the continuing evolution of patent damages.

    Shirley Webster, Ocean Tomo, LLC - Houston, TX
    Gregory L. Hillyer, Feldman Gale, P.A. - Philadelphia, PA

  • 4:45 pm
    0.75 hr
    Issues with Patent NPEs
    Is there a problem with NPEs in patent litigation? And if so, what are alternative possible solutions? This panel discusses the economic consequences of the proliferation of NPE litigation in recent years, the pros and cons of proposed patent legislation, rule and case management changes involving fee-shifting, pleading requirements, disclosure of real parties in interest and other issues.

    Moderator:
    William L. LaFuze, Vinson & Elkins LLP - Houston, TX
    Panelists:
    Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP - Washington, DC
    Philip S. Johnson, Johnson & Johnson - New Brunswick, NJ
    Phyllis Turner-Brim, Intellectual Ventures - Bellevue, WA

  • 5:30 pm
    Adjourn

  • Time
    Credit
    Subject
    Speaker
  • Friday Morning, Jan. 24, 2014
    Presiding Officer:
    Jeffrey A. Wolfson, Haynes and Boone, LLP - Washington, DC
  • 7:30 am
    Conference Room Opens
    Includes continental breakfast.

  • 8:30 am
    0.75 hr
    AIA Practice Tips Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    Tips for improving practice in AIA cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are presented and explored. Tips address both written and oral advocacy, from both the Board and the practitioner perspectives.

    Moderator:
    Hon. Scott Boalick, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
    Panelists:
    Hon. Justin Arbes, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Alexandria, VA
    Hon. Jennifer Bisk, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA
    Hon. Thomas L. Giannetti, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA

  • 9:15 am
    1.00 hr
    Post-Grant Proceedings, Strategies and Practice
    Post-grant patent proceedings were pursued in record number at the USPTO in 2013 and the rate of new petition filings continues to accelerate beyond initial expectations Emerging trends, notable outcomes, and best practices are identified relative to the 700+ proceedings filed with the PTAB. Both petitioner and patentee perspectives are analyzed relative to current, and future USPTO practices, including contemplated legislative and/or rule based developments.

    Scott A. McKeown, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria, VA
    Robert Greene Sterne, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - Washington, DC

  • 10:15 am
    Break

  • 10:30 am
    1.00 hr ethics
    Harmonization and Enforcement of USPTO Ethical Standards in the AIA Era
    Present day ethical issues affecting attorneys and agents who practice before the USPTO, including ethical standards under the Proposed New USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, modeled on the ABA’s Model; the mechanics of OED’s complaint and investigative process; the ethical impact of the AIA on practitioners and OED; and the practical examples and statistics relating to OED enforcement.

    William R. Covey, Deputy General Counsel and Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA

  • 11:30 am
    0.75 hr
    Claims Construction
    Lighting Ballast and de novo review (and how it changes strategies) and broadest reasonable construction standard.

    Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP - Redwood City, CA
    Nathan Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Alexandria, VA

  • 12:15 pm
    0.50 hr
    Ex Parte Reexam in View of Fresenius – A Hail Mary Pass Which Should Be in Every Playbook
    Due to typically lengthy District Court litigation, accused patent infringers may file an ex parte reexamination request as a final opportunity to cancel the claims of an asserted patent. The AlA replaced the much maligned inter partes reexamination with a more streamlined inter partes review having a quick trigger estoppel provision. However, the AlA left ex parte reexamination intact, which means that parties such as Fresenius still have the ability to take advantage of the difference between the evidentiary standards applied in district court and at the USPTO.

    W. Todd Baker, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria, VA

  • 12:45 pm
    Pick Up Lunch
    Included in registration.

  • Friday Afternoon, Jan. 24, 2014
    Presiding Officer:
    John W. Ryan, Thompson Hine LLP - Washington, DC
  • Keynote Luncheon Presentation
  • 1:15 pm
    0.75 hr
    View from Federal Circuit

    Hon. Pauline Newman, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Washington, DC

  • 2:00 pm
    Break

  • 2:15 pm
    1.00 hr
    Judicial Panel
    Distinguished judges discuss their experiences hearing and trying patent cases.

    Moderator:
    Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, Retired, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Washington, DC
    Panelists:
    Hon. Charles E. Bullock, U.S. International Trade Commission - Washington, DC
    Hon. T. S. Ellis III, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria, VA
    Hon. Joseph J. Farnan Jr., Former U.S. District Court Judge, Farnan LLP - Wilmington, DE

  • 3:15 pm
    1.00 hr ethics
    Ethics in Doing Deals and Settling IP Suits
    Using video cartoons to examine ethical issues in negotiation, this presentation addresses issues of client identity, the line between "puffing" and "material misrepresentations," the duty of disclosure and interaction between the rule against ex parte contacts, the client's right to talk directly to the other side, and the lawyer's obligation not to induce the client to engage in acts the lawyer is barred from doing.

    David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law - Macon, GA

  • 4:15 pm
    Adjourn

  • Day 1 January 23, 2014
  • Day 2 January 24, 2014
Download Schedule

Conference Faculty

Hon. Justin Arbes

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Alexandria, VA

Robert Bahr

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

W. Todd Baker

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
Alexandria, VA

Hon. Jennifer Bisk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Hon. Scott Boalick

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Foley & Lardner LLP
Washington, DC

Hon. Charles E. Bullock

U.S. International Trade Commission
Washington, DC

Christopher A. Cotropia

Intellectual Property Institute, University of Richmond School of Law
Richmond, VA

William R. Covey

Deputy General Counsel and Director, Office of Enrollment and Discipline, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Donald R. Dunner

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Washington, DC

Tracy-Gene G. Durkin

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC

Hon. T. S. Ellis III

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
Alexandria, VA

Hon. Joseph J. Farnan Jr.

Former U.S. District Court Judge, Farnan LLP
Wilmington, DE

Peggy Focarino

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Kathleen Fonda

Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Hon. Thomas L. Giannetti

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Gregory L. Hillyer

Feldman Gale, P.A.
Philadelphia, PA

Andrew H. Hirshfeld

Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

David Hricik

Mercer University School of Law
Macon, GA

Philip S. Johnson

Johnson & Johnson
New Brunswick, NJ

Nathan Kelley

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

William L. LaFuze

Vinson & Elkins LLP
Houston, TX

William LaMarca

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Dale S. Lazar

DLA Piper LLP US
Reston, VA

Scott A. McKeown

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
Alexandria, VA

Hon. Paul R. Michel

Chief Judge, Retired, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Washington, DC

Gianni Minutoli

DLA Piper LLP US
Washington, DC

Amy J. Nelson

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Hon. Pauline Newman

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Washington, DC

Michael W. O'Neill

Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg LLP
Washington, DC

Brad D. Pedersen

Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A.
Minneapolis, MN

Phillip B. Philbin

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Dallas, TX

Edward R. Reines

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Redwood City, CA

Robert Greene Sterne

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC

Robert L. Stoll

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Washington, DC

Phyllis Turner-Brim

Intellectual Ventures
Bellevue, WA

Lore Unt

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

T. Cy Walker

Kenyon & Kenyon
Washington, DC

Shirley Webster

Ocean Tomo, LLC
Houston, TX

Bradley C. Wright

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
Washington, DC

Planning Committee

Hon. James D. Smith—Chair

Chief Judge, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

W. Todd Baker

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
Alexandria, VA

James E. Beyer

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Dayton, OH

Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Foley & Lardner LLP
Washington, DC

Christopher A. Cotropia

Intellectual Property Institute, University of Richmond School of Law
Richmond, VA

Jeffrey D. Feldman

Feldman Gale, P.A.
Miami, FL

Edward J. Kessler

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
Washington, DC

Stephen G. Kunin

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
Alexandria, VA

William L. LaFuze

Vinson & Elkins LLP
Houston, TX

William LaMarca

Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Dale S. Lazar

DLA Piper LLP US
Reston, VA

David L. McCombs

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Dallas, TX

Hon. James T. Moore

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alexandria, VA

Adam Mossoff

George Mason University School of Law
Arlington, VA

Michael W. O'Neill

Novak Druce Connolly Bove & Quigg LLP
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Renk

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
Chicago, IL

John W. Ryan

Thompson Hine LLP
Washington, DC

Robert Greene Sterne

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC

T. Cy Walker

Kenyon & Kenyon
Washington, DC

Shirley Webster

Ocean Tomo, LLC
Houston, TX

Jeffrey A. Wolfson

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Washington, DC

Bradley C. Wright

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
Washington, DC

Credit Info

  • Alexandria
MCLE Credit
Toggle view Texas – 14.75 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
You may claim your credit online in Your Briefcase, and UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to the State Bar of Texas. A Certificate of Attendance will be provided in Your Briefcase for your records. The system reports Texas CLE credit every Tuesday. If you are claiming credit in the last week of your birth month, self-report your CLE credit directly to the State Bar of Texas at texasbar.com, using the course number  provided on your certificate of attendance.
Toggle view California – 14.75 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
You must claim your credit online in Your Briefcase, and will then be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. UT Law CLE is required to provide the State Bar with electronic attendance records for any MCLE participatory activity within 60 days of completion of the activity. The California licensee is responsible for reporting their compliance/credit hours earned to the State Bar at the end of their reporting period directly to the State Bar of California at calbar.ca.gov.  UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  
Toggle view Delaware – 14.80 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
No Additional Credit Information.
Toggle view Illinois – Expected – 14.75 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
Within 10 days of the conference you must claim and certify your credit online in Your Briefcase, then you will be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. UT Law CLE will verify the number of Illinois attorneys in attendance within 10 days after the conference and will report your credit to the MCLE Board of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Failure to submit your credit within 10 days may result in attendance not being reported or may result in additional fees being assessed to you for credit reporting. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.
Toggle view New Jersey – 0.00 hr
As The University of Texas School of Law is a State Bar of Texas approved MCLE provider (Sponsor #13), our courses are presumptively approved for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour, and in accordance with the Regulations of the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board on Continuing Legal Education. More information and details can be found in the Board of Continuing Legal Education Regulations (PDF).

At the conclusion of the conference you  will need to claim and certify your credit online, in your UTCLE "Briefcase", you will then be provided a certificate of attendance . Self-report your CLE credit directly to the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board on Continuing Legal Education. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.
Toggle view New York – 17.50 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
As The University of Texas School of Law is a Oklahoma Bar Association presumptively approved MCLE provider (#169), and Oklahoma is a New York Approved Jurisdiction on List A, our courses are approved for MCLE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour, and in accordance with the Program Rules and the Regulations and Guidelines of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board. More information and details can be found at Section 6 of the Regulations and Guidelines (PDF).

 You must claim and certify your credit online in your UTCLE "Briefcase", and will then be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. Self-report your CLE credit directly to the New York State Bar Association. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  
Toggle view Ohio – 14.75 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
You must claim and certify your credit online in Your Briefcase, you will then be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to The Supreme Court of Ohio within 30 days after the conference. 
Toggle view Oklahoma – 17.00 hrs  |  2.50 hrs Ethics
You must claim and certify your credit online in Your Briefcase, then you will then be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. UT Law CLE will report credit on your behalf to the Oklahoma Bar Association within 30 days after the conference.
Toggle view Pennsylvania – 12.50 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
UT Law CLE is an approved provider of Pennsylvania credit, sponsor #236. You must claim your credit online in Your Briefcase, and will then be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. Attorney attendance will be reported to Pennsylvania within 2 weeks after credit is claimed and submit. Attorneys are not able to report this credit on their own, and UT Law CLE pays all associated fees for the credit hours. Contact us at accreditation@utcle.org if you have additional questions.
Toggle view Virginia – 12.00 hrs  |  2.00 hrs Ethics
At the conference, you will need to sign in on the Record of Attendance form at the registration desk. Self-report your CLE credit directly to the Virginia State Bar. You must claim your credit online in Your Briefcase, and will then be provided a Certificate of Attendance for your records. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  
Other Credit
Toggle view TX Accounting CPE – 14.75 hrs
The University of Texas School of Law (Provider #250) live conferences are presumptively approved by The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy for Texas Accounting CPE credit based on a 50-minute credit hour. Approved for general CPE credit only.

At the conference, you are welcome to sign in on the Accounting CPE Record of Attendance form at the registration desk, but we are now reporting all credit online. You will receive a Texas Accounting Certificate of Completion in Your Briefcase. Self-report your CPE credit directly to TSBPA. UT Law CLE will maintain Attendance Records for four years.  

Contact us at accreditation@utcle.org if you have additional questions.

Key Dates

Alexandria – Jan 23-24, 2014 – United States Patent and Trademark Office
Conference Concluded
Buy
  • Alexandria
Individual
Last day for $660.00 Regular pricing: Jan 15, 2014

$710.00 for registrations received after this time

USPTO Employee
Last day for $250.00 Regular pricing: Jan 15, 2015

$250.00 for registrations received after this time

Group 10% (5-9) (5 registrants minimum)
Last day for $595.00 Regular pricing: Jan 15, 2014

$645.00 for registrations received after this time

Group 20% (10+) (10 registrants minimum)
Last day for $530.00 Regular pricing: Jan 15, 2014

$580.00 for registrations received after this time

Last day for cancellation (full refund): Jan 17, 2014

$50 processing fee applied after this date

Last day for cancellation: Jan 20, 2014

Venue

speaker

United States Patent and Trademark Office

600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA

Additional Information

Parking Information

Please click here for directions and parking information. 

Nearby Hotel Accommodations
speaker

The Westin Alexandria

400 Courthouse Square
Alexandria, VA
866.837.4210 (reservations)
Map

Accommodations

$179 room rate good through December 23, 2013 (subject to availability). 

Please call 1-866-837-4210 and reference the "UT Law School USPTO room block" to reserve your room or click here to reserve your room online.

Parking Information

Valet Parking: $10 daily, $26 overnight

Stay in the loop with UT Law CLE

Sign-Up Now  
Accredited CLE
Live Conferences
Studio Webcasts
eConferences
eCourses
Hooked on CLE
Answer Bar
Research & Self-Study
Materials
eLibrary

Subscriptions
MCLE On-Demand and eLibrary
Your UT Law CLE
Your Briefcase
Your Account
Your Cart
Sign In or Join
About
Scholarships
Sponsorships
Speakers
Texas Law Resources
UT Law CLE
About Us
Our Volunteers
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Security
Help & Contact
FAQ
Contact Us
Facebook    LinkedIn    Twitter    Youtube

© 2024 The University of Texas School of Law Continuing Legal Education | 512.475.6700 | Version 9.005.1

Back to top
More Information
Warning
Error
Warning
Please sign in to continue
Forgot Password   |  Create Account
Item has been added to your cart.

Item description

Checkout
Item has been added to your Briefcase.

Item description

Go to your Briefcase