直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Virtual Seminar

US Caselaw Update and Strategies for Amendment Practice (Plus Interactive Q&A)

November 10, 2020

Virtual

Register

While our fall seminars cannot be conducted in person this year, we are pleased to offer an online seminar with interactive Q&A sessions and look forward to connecting with each of you in this new format. We are offering three dates for this seminar to promote smaller and livelier sessions. All technologies will be covered in each session, so please join us for whichever date works best with your schedule.

In this seminar, we will examine amendment practice at the USPTO and how it differs from EPO practice and strategies. Using recent court decisions and practical examples, we will explore the more “liberal” approach in the US for making claim amendments and also point out unique pitfalls, such as with establishing “possession of the invention” at the time of filing and claim construction disputes after the patent is granted. The goal of this seminar is to teach you to think more like a US patent attorney when formulating amendments and to employ the best strategies to obtain valuable claims for enforcement.

More specifically, we will discuss:

  • Recent Decisions and Technology-Focused Examples for Amending Claims:
    • Satisfying eligibility standards under Section 101
    • Navigating indefiniteness under Section 112
    • Avoiding broad functional language and means-plus-function issues
    • Mining the specification for potential U.S. amendments:
      • Can you rely on the original claims?
      • Can you choose from lists?
      • Can you rely on the examples?
    • Understanding U.S. claim construction issues and pitfalls
    • Taking advantage of post-grant amendment options

Register

Speakers:
Michele C. Bosch
Bryan C. Diner
C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
Timothy J. May
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101, indefiniteness (35 USC § 112), claim amendments, claim construction, enforcement, European Patent Office (EPO), inventorship, means-plus-function claim, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)

Related Professionals

Michele C. Bosch
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4193
Email
Timothy J. May
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4447
Email
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Seminar

3rd AI, IP, & Legal Forum

June 6, 2026

Shangai

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP