Vol. XVI, No.5 March 2011,2nd Ed.
Early Bird Registration ends
March 15th! Save $300!
2011 Bench & Bar
Key Biscayne, Florida
June 22-25, 2011
Come join us in Key Biscayne for family-friendly fun in the
surf and sun, as well as golf, tennis, and local attractions! The
Conference Program will continue the dialogue on innovation
and the law, and features distinguished panelists presenting on
innovation from corporate, judicial, and practitioner perspectives,
as well as competitiveness, e-discovery, amicus briefing, con-
flicts, and much more. Early bird registration is a better opportu-
nity than ever! Register on the event website, and contact Greg
Glofak at glofak@fedcirbar.org with any questions. A short pro-
gram agenda can be found on page 2.
1
NEW & IMPROVED PRODUCTS:
REDESIGNS IN SECTION 337
INVESTIGATIONS
written by Steven E. Adkins1
Under the trade statute know as Section 337 (19 U.S.C. §
1337), the United States International Trade Commission (the
Commission or the ITC) is authorized to direct United States Cus-
toms and Border Protection (Customs) to seize products that in-
fringe a United States intellectual property right from entry into
the United States. The Commission fulfills this role by issuing
exclusion orders that are enforced by Customs. The Commission
may also issue a cease and desist order prohibiting certain behav-
ior by companies within the United States found to infringe a US
intellectual property right. Cease and desist orders are enforced
by the ITC.
There is no monetary penalty for violating an exclusion or-
der. See Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Comm’n Op. 11, Inv.
No. 337-TA-406 (June 23, 2003), 2003 ITC LEXIS 807, at *16 (“We
have recognized that civil penalties are expressly authorized un-
der 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(2) for violations of cease and desist orders
only.”). With respect to cease and desist orders, however, Sec-
tion 337 provides for penalties for violating such orders at the
greater of US $100,000 per day of violation or two times the value
of the goods that are the subject of the violation. 19 U.S.C. §
1337(f)(2) (2009).
One effective strategy in responding to a Section 337 com-
plaint (and possibly avoiding the disruption caused by ITC reme-
dial orders) is to create a new product that is removed from the
scope of the intellectual property right involved in the Section 337
investigation to avoid any question of infringement. As the Com-
mission has observed, quoting an ALJ, “respondents subject to a
Commission remedial order have an affirmative duty to take ener-
getic steps to do everything in their power to assure compliance
and … this duty not only means not to cross the line of infringe-
ment, but to stay several healthy steps away.” Certain Agricul-
tural Tractors Under 50 Power Take-Off Horsepower, Inv. No. 337-
TA-380, Comm’n Op. at 47 (Aug. 1999).
Where a redesign is feasible, it presents a unique opportu-
nity to ensure continuity in supplying the US market with goods
and to avoid the disruption and uncertainty that a Section 337
investigation can produce. Given the rapid pace of Section 337
investigations, redesign efforts should begin immediately after a
(continued on p. 4)
 2011 Bench & Bar
Innovation and the Law:
The Challenges in Subject Matter
and Practice at Home and Abroad

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

• Board of Governors Meeting

• Welcome Networking Reception

Thursday, June 23, 2011

• Welcome Remarks
• The Supreme Court Review 2011
• State of the Court, The Chief Judge,
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
• International Competitiveness & Practice
• Innovation and Judicial Systems
• Implications of Conflicts
• FCBA Annual Meeting
Friday, June 24, 2011
• Managing E-Discovery
• Townhall (Social Media, Inequitable
Conduct, The Bilski Effect)
• The Circuit Perspective
FEATURED BENCH & BAR PANEL
Innovation and Judicial Systems
June 23, 2011
10:45- 11:45 a.m. EST
Leading international and national practitioners address in-
stitutional tensions encountered when the law seeks predictabil-
ity and stability in a commerce area undergoing innovation. They
will also address major areas of stress in the adjudication process
itself as the system seeks to achieve just law and efficiency,
economy, and flexibility at the same time. Panelists may include
Shashank Upadhye, Vice President of Intellectual Property, Apotex
Inc., Kieran Power, Vice President of Intellectual Property, Aristo-
crat Technologies, Ltd., Dr. Heinz Goddar, Patent Attorney,
Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany, and Frank Zacharias, Chief Patent
Counsel, Porsche AG.. To register for this program please visit the
Bench & Bar website.

Professional Responsibility -
The Unrelenting Conflicts Landscape

• Ethics: Hot Topics in Conflicts of Interest

Saturday, June 25, 2011

• The Circuit Mediation Program

• The Association’s Amicus Process
• Best Practices in Amicus Briefing-
The Why and the Strategy
• Corporate Perspectives
• District Court Perspectives

2
 THE LEADERS CIRCLE
(as of date of publication)
2011 NATIONAL LEADERS
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP
WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
ADDUCI MASTRIANI
& SCHAUMBERG LLP
MICROSOFT
*******************
SUSTAINING LEADERS
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW
GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
*******************
SUPPORTING LEADERS
ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
WILMERHALE LLP
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
PERKINS COIE LLP
ROTHWELL FIGG ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
3
2011 BENCH & BAR
(as of date of publication)
REGISTRATION SPONSORS
FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER
& SCINTO LLP
*******************
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
MILBANK TWEED HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
SESSION SPONSORS
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
*******************
FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT &
DUNNER LLP
CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP
SHORE CHAN BRAGALONE DEPUMPO LLP
PRO BONO SESSION SPONSORS
FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO LLP
THANK YOU
The members of the Association and supporters of the
Charitable and Educational Fund encourage a broad variety of
activities in support of the legal community of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They do so in many
ways. From membership and its benefits to written and profes-
sional scholarship, timely and insightful continuing legal edu-
cation program, and regional and national conferences such
as the Bench & Bar, this support anchors an Association com-
mitment to professional excellence in the Circuit community.
Thank you for this ongoing traditional support.
A number of sponsors have chosen to participate on an
annual basis in these outreaches through “The Leaders Circle.”
We also want to express our appreciation to those who have
chosen this important way to participate.
For additional information, please contact Angie McDaniel at
mcdaniel@fedcirbar.org
 (continued from p. 1)
company receives notice of the ITC complaint (along with the
myriad other activities that must take place simultaneously).
Recall that the ITC exclusion orders are enforced by Cus-
toms. Once an exclusion order becomes final, the party accused
of infringing the IP right has the burden of proving to Customs,
and, possibly, to the Commission, that the new product does not
infringe. Until Customs finds that the new products do not in-
fringe, they are subject to seizure at the border. Most companies
selling in the United States can ill-afford such a disruption to their
supply efforts. Thus, the accused infringer has every incentive to
get the new products before the ALJ to have the redesigned prod-
ucts considered and, perhaps, cleared of infringement before the The 2011 International Series
ITC enters any exclusion or cease and desist orders.
What if the new product is not developed until after the ITC
enters an exclusion order? Two avenues are available to the Innovation and the Law:
accused infringer in such a situation. He or she may: 1. seek a
A Search for Best Practices
Customs ruling that the new products are not covered by the
exclusion order and/or 2. seek an Advisory ruling from the ITC Perspectives:
that the new products are not infringing and, thus, not subject to Japan, Germany, and the United States
exclusion order seizure by Customs. Tokyo, Japan
CUSTOMS RULINGS Munich/Stuttgart, Germany
Under the Customs ruling procedure, Customs will consider May 11, 2011
the redesigned product and then determine whether the product Innovation and Commerce: Global Legal Considerations
should be excluded under the terms of the ITC exclusion order. May 12-13, 2011
See 19 C.F.R. § 177. 1(c) (2009) (a ruling may be requested “by any The Japanese IP High Court and the Federal Circuit
person who, as an importer or exporter of merchandise, or other- May 18, 2011
wise, has a direct and demonstrable interest in the question or Innovation and Commerce: Global Legal
questions presented in the ruling request, or by the authorized Considerations and
agent of such person.”); see also http://www.customs.gov/ xp/ Frontline Considerations in the Courts
cgov/trade/legal/ (last visited September 3, 2010) (providing a de- Expect to hear these topics addressed:
scription of customs rulings). If Customs finds that the new prod- • Innovation and Commerce: Finding Best Practices, the
uct is not covered by the exclusion order, it will issue a ruling Commerce Perspective.
explaining its reasoning and permitting the articles to be imported • Administration of the System: Managing the Judicial
into the United States. Any disruption to access to the US market System and Patent Adjudications
can be greatly diminished by such a ruling from Customs. • The Role of the Bar (contribution of the Bars of Japan and
In a situation where the Commission has entered a cease and
the FCBA to review and discuss challenges to and improvements
desist order in addition to exclusion orders, continuing to import
in the judicial system; pro bono; amicus practice)
pursuant to a Customs ruling may expose a company to greater
financial risk. This is so because, as noted, while there are no
• Advocacy Skills in the System
monetary sanctions for violating an exclusion order, the penalties • Joint En Banc Panel and Discussion:
for violating cease and desist orders are substantial. Indeed, com- The Japanese IP High Court and the Federal Circuit -
panies found to violate cease and desist orders have had penal- Joint Session and State of the Courts
ties assessed against them in the millions of dollars. Moreover, • Developing Topics Breakout Panels (patent exhaustion,
the Customs ruling has no preclusive effect on the Commission. damages and injunction, obviousness, doctrine of equivalents,
In fact, the Commission has observed that it “is the sole arbiter of protection of trade secrets, indirect infringement)
whether its [cease and desist orders] are violated,” there was “no • Contributions of the IP High Court and the Federal
basis for relying on Customs’ rulings in matters concerning the Circuit to their Nations and A Look Ahead for the Next 10 Years
Commission’s [cease and desist order] . . . .” Even if Customs • The German and United States Judicial and Govern-
determines the redesigns do not infringe, the Commission can still
ment Perspectives. For more details, visit the website here.
find otherwise. Where Customs permits entry of the new product,
the patent holder can file an enforcement complaint at the ITC
arguing that Customs’s ruling is incorrect and that the new prod-
ucts should be seized by Customs.2 Meanwhile, imports of the

(continued on p. 6)

4
 THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL
.
The George Washington University Law School’s Federal Circuit
Bar Journal (FCBJ) is asking leaders and practitioners of the Federal
Circuit Bar to submit both high-quality articles for publication in the
FCBJ and suggestions for note topics for GW law students.
The FCBJ seeks to publish scholarly articles of practical use and
welcomes the opportunity to review articles by practitioners, as well
as legal scholars. The journal strives to publish pieces in all areas of the
Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, and is interested in submissions on the
following topics:
-Environmental and -MSPB
Natural Resource Litigation
-Government Personnel Appeals
-Federal Indian Law -Patent Law
-Government Contracts -Veterans Appeals
-International Trade Law
Submissions are immediately reviewed by FCBJ’s Submissions
Editor, and decisions regarding publication are made on an aggressive
timetable to ensure timely discussion of breaking topics. With a sub-
scriber base of over three thousand judges, professors, attorneys and
law students, FCBJ is a publication widely-read by leaders and pre-
eminent practitioners of the Federal Circuit Bar. Articles may be
submitted electronically to fcbj@law.gwu.edu (include “Article Sub-
mission” in the title), or through ExpressO, a service provided by the
Berkeley Electronic Press, or by mail at:
Submissions Editor
Federal Circuit Bar Journal
The George Washington University Law School
2029 K Street, N.W., Suite 401
Washington, DC 20006
JOIN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR
ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY
WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN YOUR COLLEAGUES - LEADERS AND
PRACTITIONERS - TO PARTICIPATE IN LEARNING AND GROWTH
COMMITTED TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COMMUNITY.
Membership Advantages
Reduced Pricing on Programs
 Bench & Bar Conference – Annual in-depth program exploring the
spectrum of Circuit practice and justice considerations, gathering
national leaders of the Bench and the Bar.
 Horizons Seminar Series: Educational and Topical Webcasts – Edu-
cational nuts & bolts advocacy and subject matter areas as well as
important, timely decisions such as In Re Bilski. More than a
dozen webcasts yearly.
 Regional Programs – Full-day programs for local audiences, in-
volving leading corporate and litigation counsel and many levels of
the Federal Bench. Examples include October 18, 2010, “The Legal
System and Patent Damages”, in Berkeley, CA, and “Court Week,”
November 1-4, 2010, in Atlanta, GA.
Exclusive Access to Publications
 Journal - Published quarterly in collaboration with George Wash-
ington University Law School, the journal includes scholarly ar-
ticles and recent case summaries, keeping you informed of develop-
ments and trends in the law in Circuit community. All past journals
are available to members through the website.
 Case Digest – A monthly publication that provides a summary of
all precedential opinions of the Federal Circuit issued the preceding
month. All digests are available to members through the website.
 Newsletter - The newsletter contains timely information including
rules changes, personnel changes, hearing dates, and upcoming meet-
ings and events of the Association.
NEWSLETTER CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

In addition, the FCBJ is seeking suggestions for note topics for If you are interested in writing an article for the Newsletter, please
GW law students. The leaders and practitioners of the Federal Circuit contact Greg Glofak at
Bar are in the best position to guide students so that the FCBJ can glofak@fedcirbar.org.
continue to publish cutting-edge student notes that are timely and
relevant to the journal’s readership. Suggestions for note topics can be
brief – just enough to help students understand the issue and appreci-
ate its importance. The FCBJ does anticipate that students may have
follow-up questions and would appreciate your willingness to provide
feedback should a student decide to pursue a note based upon your
suggested topic. Suggestions for note topics may be submitted elec-
tronically to fcbj@law.gwu.edu (include “Note Topics” in the title), or
by mail at:
Senior Notes Editor
Federal Circuit Bar Journal
The George Washington University Law School
2029 K Street, N.W., Suite 401
Washington, DC 20006

5

2011 Intellectual Property Institute
USC Gould School of Law
Los Angeles, California
When: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 - 8:30 a.m. - 5:25 p.m.
Where: The Beverly Hills Hotel, Beverly Hills, CA
What: Network with over 400 intellectual property
professionals
Who: National speakers on patent, copyright and trademark:
o The Hon. Haldane Robert Mayer and the Hon.
Kathleen O’Malley on practice at the Federal Circuit
today
o U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Victoria A. Espinel on IP enforcement
o Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the U.S. PTO David J. Kappos on the
future of IP
o The Hon. Kim McLane Wardlaw (9th Cir.), the Hon.
Jeremy D. Fogel and the Hon. A. Howard Matz (C.D.
Cal.) on trademark and copyright litigation
o The Hon. T. John Ward (E.D. Tex.) on reasonable
royalty patent damages
o An IP year in review with Professors Lemley,
Nimmer and McCarthy
Additional highlights:
o Concurrent breakout sessions focused on patent,
copyright and trademark issues
o Five networking breaks, including a hosted cocktail
reception
o 7.5 hours of MCLE and 6.5 hours of CPE credits
See the full lineup of speakers and topics by clicking here.
For more information visit http://law.usc.edu/cle/ip. Call or email
the USC Law Continuing Legal Education office with questions
at 213-743-1772 or cle@law.usc.edu.
We hope to see you at the 2011 Intellectual Property Institute!
6
(continued from p. 4)
redesigned product may continue although the risk of being found
to violate a cease and desist order (and the attendant penalties) is
present.
Among the benefits of a Customs ruling procedure is that
importation of new products can likely resume more quickly than
if one chooses to seek an ITC advisory opinion. In a situation
where the ITC has entered a cease and desist order, however,
there is the risk of a monetary penalty if one is found to have
violated the cease and desist order by continuing to import and
sell the products in the United States.
ITCADVISORY OPINIONS
Another approach is to seek an advisory opinion from the
ITC that the new products are not covered by the Commission’s
remedial orders. Under Commission Rule 210.79, one may request
that the Commission conduct an investigation and issue an advi-
sory opinion as to whether the person’s proposed course of ac-
tion or conduct would violate a Commission exclusion order, CDO
or consent order. Under Rule 210.79, any company that is poten-
tially affected by an ITC exclusion order may seek the Commission’s
advisory opinion of whether the redesigned product falls within
the scope of the Commission’s orders.3 Among the benefits of
such a ruling from that ITC is that it reduces the risk of of substan-
tial civil penalties that can be imposed for a violation of a cease
and desist or consent order under Section 337(f)(2).
As with the Customs ruling procedure, there are upsides and
downsides to the ITC Advisory proceeding. While such pro-
ceedings can diminish any risk of a violation of a cease and desist
order (and the penalties for such a violation), they can take sev-
eral months to complete so that they offer no practical solution to
the dilemma that a company subject to an ITC remedial order
faces.
CONCLUSION
When faced with the potential exclusion from the United
States market, a company must immediately consider developing
a new product that is “several healthy steps away” from the scope
of an asserted IP right. The accused infringer that develops such
a new and improved product can ensure continued access to the
United States market even though the alleged old and infringing
products can no longer be sold here.
Footnotes
1
Mr. Adkins is a partner with Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, resident in the Washington, D.C. office, and co-
chairs the Firm’s Section 337 practice. This article reflects the
current personal views and considerations of the author only and
does not contain legal advice. This paper does not necessarily
reflect the views of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP or the Firm’s
clients. This paper does not establish any type of attorney-client
relationship. This document contains public information that has
been prepared for educational purposes to further an understand-
ing of United States intellectual property and international trade
law. Reasonable attempts have been made to ensure the accuracy
of the contents; to the extent any errors or omissions exist here, all
liability is expressly disclaimed.
2
If Customs determines that the new product is covered by
(continued on p. 9)
 SAVE THE DATE!
U.S. Court of Federal Claims Western
Conference of the Bench & Bar
Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, California
October 18-19, 2011
The GW Law Intellectual Property
The 24th Annual Judicial Conference will be held on the West Advisory Board
Coast for the first time. The conference will feature judges and
special masters of the Court, leading academics, and practitioners
Spring Meeting
from the government and private sectors who will address such March 17-19, 2011
issues as protecting intellectual property in government contracts, The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco, California
the nuts and bolts of litigating a bid protest case, the interplay of
science and the law in cases before the Court, the latest decisions on
Program highlights include:
water rights, rails-to-trails claims, tribal claims, and vaccines.
For more information please visit the event website.
THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011
7:00 P.M.-8:30 P.M. GW Law IP Advisory Board Welcome
Reception with Newly Admitted Students & Bay Area Law
Alumni at the Ritz-Carlton San Francisco

FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2011

7:30 A.M.-9:00 A.M. Board meeting and working Breakfast

10:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M. Spouse welcome coffee hosted by Joy

O’Rourke. Tours for spouses.

GW LAW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PANEL SYMPOSIUM

8:30 A.M.-9:00 A.M. Registration & Coffee Reception

SAVE THE DATE!
9:00 A.M.-9:15 A.M. Panel Symposium Welcome
An Introduction to Federal Circuit
Practice 9:15 A.M.-10:15 A.M. “Intellectual Property in the Modern
A Panel Discussion at the Georgetown University Boardroom: Major Issues Facing General Counsels, CEO ’s
Law Center and Boards in Today’s Corporations”
April 7, 2011
10:15 A.M.-10:30 A.M. Break/ Refreshments provided
Details will be forthcoming!
10:30 A.M.-NOON “Intellectual Property in the Courtroom:
Issues District Judges Face with Significant IP Dockets”

NOON-1:30 P.M. Luncheon featuring The Honorable

Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit

3:30 P.M. Judge Whyte portrait unveiling in San Jose, CA

7:00 P.M.-9:30 P.M. Dinner for Board members and VIP

guests
For questions please contact Susie Coggin at
scoggin@law.gwu.edu or 202.994.0728

7
 26th Annual Intellectual
FEATURED PROGRAM
Henderson v. Shinseki: Supreme Court
Property Law Conference
Sides with Veterans Regarding Notices in Washington, DC
of Appeal at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in
A Webcast at The Federal Circuit Bar Association Arlington,VA
March 16, 2011 April 6-9, 2011
3:00- 4:30 p.m. EDT
Tune in on March 16 to hear a distinguished panel discuss a Front-line programs include:
new decision of importance to military veterans. In Henderson v. Reform Inside and Outside the USPTO
Shinseki, the U.S. Supreme Court handed veterans a victory with Contrasting USPTO and Judiciary Treatment of Patent
respect to the process for seeking benefits. The process includes Issues: How the Differing Standards Impact
a number of procedural hurdles, including a 120-day deadline for
Your Practice
filing a notice of appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. In
Henderson, a veteran missed that deadline but asserted he was Litigating Damages: Does the Hypothetical
entitled to equitable tolling because his mental illness had caused Negotiation Work?
his tardy filing. The appeals court dismissed his appeal, conclud- Hot Topics in International IP Law and Practice
ing the deadline was jurisdictional and therefore not subject to Enhanced Damages, Willfulness and the Adverse
equitable tolling. The Supreme Court held it is not jurisdictional
Inference Post-Seagate:
and reinstated the appeal. Interestingly, the Court did not specifi-
cally address whether equitable tolling is available. Our panel is How Much Has Really Changed?
uniquely qualified to address this new case, its importance and Recent Developments in Patent Term Adjustments and
ramifications. The panelists include Lisa Blatt from Arnold & Extensions, and Hot Topics in Patent Litigation
Porter, who represented Henderson; Todd Hughes of the Justice
Department, for the United States; Daryl Joseffer from King &
Notable speakers include:
Spalding for the Federal Circuit Bar Association as amicus; and
Linda Blauhut from Paralyzed Veterans of America as amicus. Hon. Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of
The panel will be moderated by Lawrence Kass, Veterans Ap- Appeals for the Federal Circuit
peals Committee Chair and partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & Hon. Paul R. Michel, Former Chief Judge, U.S.
McCloy. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Hon. James Spencer, Chief Judge, U.S. District
To register for this program please visit the FCBA website.
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Robert Bahr, Acting Associate Commissioner for
Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trade-
mark Office
Benjamin Wood, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office
Prof. Lisa A. Dolak, Syracuse University
College of Law
Steve M. Haines, Legal Director,
Seagate Technology LLC
Nelsen Lentz, Assistant General Patent Counsel,
Eli Lilly & Company

For complete information, including registration,

programs and events, visit the Section 26th Annual
Conference website.

8
 (continued from p. 6)
the exclusion order, it will issue a ruling and continue to exclude it. Upcoming ABA Meeting
The accused infringer faced with an adverse ruling by Customs
may file a protest of Customs’s decision with the United States in Washington, DC!
Court of International Trade.
3
See, e.g., VastFame Camera, Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, at the Hyatt Regency Washington on
386 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (allowing a party not named as a Capitol Hill
respondent in the original investigation to raise invalidity de-
fenses in an enforcement proceeding on a general exclusion or- April 5-9, 2011
der).
The Spring meeting will bring the world's leading international
practitioners (including both in-house and outside counsel), academ-
ics, and government officials from around the world to Washington,
DC for 4 days of outstanding programming, networking, and events.
From time to time the FCBA is happy to publish separately FCBA members pay ABA rates for this event! For more information
submitted contributions. The views expressed are those of the
click here.
author and are not binding on the FCBA.

UPCOMING EVENTS

MARCH
16 HENDERSON V. SHIINSEKI DECISION WEBCAST
17-19 GW LAW IPADVISORY BOARD SPRING MEETING
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
22 USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW IP INSTITUTE
APRIL
5 MSPB WEBCAST
5-9 ABA SECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW SPRING
MEETING, WASHINGTON, DC
MAY
11-13 INTERNATIONAL SERIES - INNOVATION AND THE LAW
TOKYO, JAPAN
18-19 INTERNATIONAL SERIES - INNOVATION AND THE LAW
MUNICH AND STUTTGART, GERMANY
JUNE
22-25 FCBA’S 2011 BENCH & BAR
CONFERENCE, KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA
OCTOBER
18-19 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS WESTERN Published by
CONFERENCE, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA Federal Circuit Bar Association
1620 I Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
phone 202-466-3923
www.fedcirbar.org
Copyright 2011 Federal Circuit Bar Association