1 Section Header Program Submission Form Program Title Date Presented Inn Year Presenting Inn Inn Number Inn City Inn State Contact Person Phone Address Please consider this program for the Program Awards: Yes No This program is being submitted for Achieving Excellence: Yes No Program Summary: Indicate the legal focus and be concise and detailed in summarizing the content and setup of your program. Please attach additional sheets if necessary. Program Materials: The following materials checklist is intended to insure that all the materials that are required to restage the program are included in the materials submitted to the Foundation office. Please check all that apply and include a copy of any of the existing materials with your program submission: Script Articles Citations of Law Legal Documents Fact Pattern List of Questions Handouts PowerPoint Presentation CD DVD Other Media (Please specify) Specific Information Regarding the Program: Number of participants required for the program Has this program been approved for CLE? Yes No Which state s CLE? How many hours? Recommended Physical Setup and Special Equipment: i.e., VCR and TV, black board with chalk, easel for diagrams, etc. When submitting video, please indicate the length of all videos. i.e., 30 or 60 min. Comments: Clarify the procedure, suggest additional ways of performing the same demonstration, or comment on Inn members response regarding the demonstration. THIS FORM IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD ON OUR WEBSITE:
2 Program Submission Form Roles: List the exact roles used in the demonstration and indicate their membership category; i.e., Pupil, Associate, Barrister or Master of the Bench. Role Membership Category Agenda of Program: List the segments and scenes of the demonstration and the approximate time each step took; i.e., Introduction by judge (10 minutes). Item Time Program Awards: Please complete this section only if the program is being submitted for consideration in the Program Awards. Describe how your program fits the Program Awards Criteria: Relevance: How did the program promote or incorporate elements of our mission? (Fostering Excellence in Professionalism, Ethics, Civility, and Legal Skills) Entertaining: How was the program captivating or fun? Creative and Innovative: How did the program present legal issues in a new way? Educational: How was the program interesting and challenging to all members? Easily Replicated: Can the program be replicated easily by another Inn? Yes No This program is: Original Replicated Questions: Please contact Christina Hartle at (703) ext 105 or by at Please include ALL program materials. The committee will not evaluate incomplete program submissions. Program_Submission_Form.indd [Rev. 10/2012]
5 FRCP & Ethics Money & Ethics Technology & Ethics USPTO & Ethics Advertising Ethics
6 Question 1-1 Asserting this type of claim can get you sanctioned.
7 Answer 1 1 What is a frivolous claim?
8 Question 1-20 If you want to obtain a protective order, you need to show this.
9 Answer 1 2 What is good cause?
10 Question 1-3 At a deposition, all objections must be done this way.
11 Answer 1 3 What is concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner
12 Question 1-4 You can instruct a deponent not to answer a question if it invades this protection.
13 Answer 1 4 What is the attorney-client privilege?
14 Question 1-5 Rule 11 expressly does not apply to this aspect of civil litigation, even though it is the costliest part of most suits.
15 What is discovery? Answer 1 5
16 Question 2-1 All fees and expenses must be this.
17 Answer 2 1 What is reasonable (or not unreasonable).
18 Question 2-2 A lawyer must not do this with his own funds and those belonging to his client.
19 What is commingle? Answer 2 2
20 Question 2-3 This type of fee agreement must always be in writing.
21 Answer 2 3 What is a contingent fee agreement?
22 Question 2-4 Contingent fees may not be charged to defend a criminal defendant and in this type of case.
23 Answer 2 4 What is a domestic relations case where the fee is based upon obtaining a divorce or the amount of alimony or support.
24 Question 2-5 A lawyer may not be paid by a third-party to represent a client if any one of three things occurs; what is one of them?
25 Answer 2 5 The client does not give informed consent; there is interference with the lawyer s professional judgment; or confidential information is not protected.
26 Question 3-1 If you use G-mail to communicate with a client, Google does this with your .
27 Answer 3 1 What is reviews it to place advertising?
28 Question 3-2 These federal laws might be implicated if you use the cloud to store data pertinent to a patent application, and it happens to be stored abroad.
29 Answer 3 2 What are the export import regulations.
30 Question 3-3 You can use this to very securely lock a file attached to an .
31 What is encryption? Answer 3 3
32 Question 3-4 This invisible information accompanies most electronic documents and can reveal changes made to a document, who authored it, and other information.
33 What is metadata? Answer 3 4
34 Question 3-5 Many states have said that, while a judge can be your friend, a judge cannot be your friend on this widely-used service.
35 What is Facebook? Answer 3 5
36 Question 4-1 This rule requires candor to the USPTO.
37 What is Rule 56? Answer 4 1
38 Question 4-2 This form is one common way used to meet the duty of candor.
39 What is an IDS? Answer 4 2
40 Question 4-3 This recent Federal Circuit case radically narrowed the duty of candor.
41 What is Therasense? Answer 4 3
42 Question 4-4 While inequitable conduct can be shown if material information is withheld with the intent to deceive, it can also be shown by this form of conduct.
43 Answer 4 4 What is affirmative egregious misconduct?
44 Question 4-5 While omitting it is no longer a basis of unenforceability, Section 112 still requires it be included in an application.
45 Answer 4 5 What is the best mode?
46 Question 5-1 What famous Supreme Court case first addressed the ability of patent agents to practice law?
47 What is Sperry? Answer 5 1
48 Question 5-2 Most states ban advertising that contains this kind of commercial speech.
49 Answer 5 2 What is false or misleading information?
50 Question 5-3 A lawyer may not make an in-person solicitation of a prospective client unless the lawyer has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the person, or the person is this.
51 What is a lawyer? Answer 5 3
52 Question 5-4 To put Patent Attorney on advertising, the person must be this.
53 Answer 5 4 An attorney in good standing in at least one state who is also registered to practice before the USPTO.
54 Question 5-5 Every advertisement must contain this.
55 Answer 5 5 What is the name and address of at least one lawyer, or law firm, responsible for its content.
57 Section 285 Litigation Ethics Conflicts of Interest Prosecution Bars Grab bag
58 Question 1-1 Only this kind of case can justify fee-shifting under this statute.
59 Answer 1 1 What is an exceptional case?
60 Question 1-2 In this 2014 case, the Supreme Court reduced the egregiousness that a prevailing party must show to shift fees.
61 What is Octane? Answer 1 2
62 Question 1-3 Apart from Section 285 and other statutes and rules, district courts also have this as a way to sanction unethical behavior.
63 Answer 1 3 What is inherent power?
64 Question 1-4 Prior to the Supreme Court s recent decision, fee shifting was permitted under Section 285 generally only if these two things were established.
65 Answer 1 4 What is objective and subjective unreasonableness.
66 Question 1-5 A patent statute allowing for shifting was adopted in this year.
67 What is 1946? Answer 1 5
68 Question 2-1 Among other things, this rule requires that a lawyer conduct a reasonable investigation into infringement before filing suit.
69 What is Rule 11? Answer 2 1
70 Question 2-2 A lawyer may not communicate with a person who is represented by counsel in a matter about the matter unless a court orders it or this occurs.
71 Answer 2 2 What is, the person s lawyer consents to the contact?
72 Question 2-3 Although they are not yet required by the Federal Circuit, creating these charts is helpful to show reasonable pre-suit investigation.
73 Answer 2 3 What are claim charts?
74 Question 2-4 A lawyer may not offer or use evidence if he knows it is this.
75 What is false? Answer 2 4
76 Question 2-5 A lawyer must disclose directly adverse precedent to a court if it is from this type of jurisdiction?
77 What is controlling? Answer 2 5
78 Question 3-1 When you are retained to represent a corporation, this is your client, not its officers, directors, or shareholders.
79 Answer 3 1 What is the entity itself?
80 Question 3-2 This rule under narrow circumstances prohibits a lawyer from both being trial counsel and a witness at trial.
81 Answer 3 2 What is the lawyer-witness rule, lawyeradvocate rule, or Rule 3.7?
82 Question 3-3 A lawyer generally can be adverse to a former client unless this relationship exists between the adverse and former representations.
83 Answer 3 3 What is a substantial relationship?
84 Question 3-4 This principle underlies the general rule that if one lawyer is conflicted out of a case, all lawyers in his firm are, too.
85 What is imputation? Answer 3 4
86 Question 3-5 A lawyer may not have a sexual relationship with a client unless this existed between them when the representation commenced.
87 Answer 3 5 What is a consensual sexual relationship?
88 Question 4-1 To obtain a protective order that includes a prosecution bar, the rule requires that the party seeking it show this.
89 Answer 4 1 What is good cause?
90 Question 4-2 This Federal Circuit case finally established the standards for determining when district courts should include prosecution bars.
91 Answer 4 2 What is In re Deutsche Bank?
92 Question 4-3 If a district court finds that by prosecuting patents a patent practitioner is engaged in this type of decision-making, he may be subject to a bar.
93 Answer 4 3 What is competitive decision-making?
94 Question 4-4 Contrary to some prior district court case law, under the Federal Circuit s approach a practitioner who engages in this form of representation is not, always, subject to a bar.
95 Answer 4 4 What is patent prosecution?
96 Question 4-5 The origins of prosecution bars can be traced to protective orders which prevented this type of lawyer from having access to the opponent s confidences.
97 Answer 4 5 What is in-house counsel?
98 Question 5-1 Unlike the Model Rules and the USPTO ethical rules, the Georgia rules specify this for each rule.
99 Answer 5 1 What is the maximum punishment?
100 Question 5-2 This is the agency within the USPTO charged with disciplining practitioners.
101 Answer 5 2 What is the OED, or Office of Enrollment and Discipline?
102 Question 5-3 The current USPTO ethical rules were adopted in this year.
103 What is 2013? Answer 5 3
104 Question 5-4 If a state disciplines a lawyer, the USPTO may also discipline the lawyer by using this form of proceeding.
105 Answer 5 4 What is reciprocal discipline?
106 Question 5-5 The USPTO has indicated there are limits on the authority of patent agents to draft this common form used in prosecution.
107 Answer 5 5 What is an assignment?
108 David Hricik Professor of Law Mercer University School of Law 1021 Georgia Ave. Macon, GA Academic Positions Mercer University School of Law (Macon, GA, 2002-). Professor of Law (Assistant; Associate; full). Civil Procedure; Ethics; Advanced Property, Intellectual Property, and the Internet; Patent Law & Litigation; Property; Remedies. George Washington University School of Law (Washington, D.C., Summer 2013). Adjunct Professor of Law. Professional Responsibility & Ethics. Atlanta s John Marshall School of Law (Atlanta, GA, ). Professor of Law. Professional Responsibility; Federal Civil Procedure. Visiting Patents, Medicine, and Ethics (Universidad Argentina Catolica, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Summer 2014; Stetson Program). Comparative Intellectual Property Law (Law School at the University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, Summer 2010; Stetson Program). Comparative Intellectual Property Law (Nankai University, Tianjin, China, Summer 2009; Stetson Program). University of Houston Law Center (Houston, TX, Summers 2004, 2006, 2008). Visiting Professor of Law. Professional Responsibility. University of Texas School of Law (Austin, TX, 1998, ). Professor of Law. Litigation Ethics; Negotiation. Adjunct St. Edward s University Graduate School of Management (Austin, TX, ). Adjunct Professor. E-Commerce Law; Business Law and Ethics. University of Houston Law Center (Houston, TX, various years). Professor of Law. Legal Research and Writing. Adjunct Judicial Clerkship Judicial Clerk to Chief Judge Rader, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
109 Education Northwestern University School of Law, J.D Cum laude; Note & Comment Editor, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business; Legal Writing Award; Dean s List. University of Arizona, B.A. (English) High Honors; Phi Beta Kappa; Intern to the Arizona State Senate and U.S. House of Representatives; Dean s List; Academic Scholarships. Legal Practice Publications Taylor, English, Dumans (Atlanta, G, 2014-) Of Counsel. Begun April Yetter & Warden, LLP (Houston, TX, ). Of Counsel. Representations included patent, trademark, antitrust, false advertising, legal malpractice defense, and ethics consultations. Slusser & Frost, LLP ( ). Partner. Representations included patent and complex commercial cases and civil appeals; Founding partner; General firm management. Baker Botts, LLP ( ). Associate/Special Counsel Worked with the trial, appellate, and intellectual property departments and served as in-house counsel. Books ETHICAL ISSUES IN PATENT LITIGATION (Oxford University Press 2010) (2d ed. 2014; 3rd ed. forthcoming 2015). ETHICAL ISSUES IN PATENT PROSECUTION (Oxford University Press 2009) (co-author) (2d ed. 2013); (3rd ed. forthcoming 2014). MASTERING CIVIL PROCEDURE (Carolina Academic Press 2008) (2d ed. 2011). MODERN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: PROBLEMS, THEORIES, AND LAWYERING STRATEGIES (Carolina Academic Press 2006; 2d ed. 2009) (co-author). TEACHERS MANUAL FOR MODERN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (Carolina Academic Press 2006; 2d ed. 2009) (co-author). 2
110 Articles PROPERTY: CASES, DOCUMENTS, AND LAWYERING STRATEGIES (Lexis/Nexis 2004) (2d ed. 2008; 3rd ed. 2013) (co-author). TEACHERS MANUAL FOR PROPERTY: CASES, DOCUMENTS, AND LAWYERING STRATEGIES (Lexis/Nexis 2004) (2d ed. 2008; 3rd ed. 2013) (co-author). SUPPLEMENTS FOR PROPERTY: CASES, DOCUMENTS, AND LAWYERING STRATEGIES (co-author) (Lexis/Nexis 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009). Writing Matters, Georgia B.J. (regular column on writing, ethics, and effective lawyering) (co-author) (Feb to present) (quarterly). Wrong for the Part, St. Mary s J. Ethics & Malpractice (Forthcoming 2014). Dear Lawyer: If You Decide It's Not Economical to Represent Me, You Can Fire Me As Your Contingent Fee Client, but I Agree I Will Still Owe You a Fee, 64 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (2013). The Same Thing Twice: Copying Tex from One Client s Patent into Another Client s Application, 5 Landslide 13 (2013). Exploring drivers of change on e-discovery in the future and their effects on lawyers, Fulton County Daily Report (2012) (co-author). Legal Ethics and Non-Practicing Entities: Being on the Receiving End Matters Too, 27 Santa Clara J. of High Tech. 793 (2011). What Experts can do for Your IP Case, ABA Intell. Prop. L. Newsletter 6 (2011). Motions to Disqualify in Texas State and Federal Court 74 Tex. B. J. 466 (2011) (co-author). Tweet me Some Ethics, 17 J. Nat l. Ass n. of Consumer Advocates 1 (2011) (co-author). An Article we Wrote Ourselves to the Future: Early 21st Century Views on Ethics and the Internet, 1 St. Mary s J. on Legal Malpractice 114 (2011) (co-author). Ethics and the Internet: It s a Funny Old New World, The Practical Lawyer 21 (2011) (co-author). 3
111 Congratulations on Your Hallucinations: Why the 1992 Amendment to Rule 1.56 is Irrelevant to Inequitable Conduct, 38 Am. Intell. Prop. L. Q.J. 1 (2010) (co-author). Memoriam for Professor Ed Brewer, 36 N. Ky. L. Rev. vii (2009). Infinite Combinations: Conflicts of Interest in Patent Litigation, 26 Del. Lawyer 14 (2009). Remedies for the Infringer? 20 ABA Intell. Prop. Litig. 11 (2009). Metadata: Are You in Danger of an Ethics Violation, 13 ABA Young Lawyer 2 (2009), (co-author). An Update Current Client Conflicts of Interest, 19 Intell. Prop. Litig. 1 (2008). Some limits on Evidence Gathering in the Digital Age, 25 GPSolo 24 (2008) (co-author). Metadata: The Ghosts Haunting e-documents, 82 Fl. B.J. 32 (2008) (coauthor). Patents Compared to Trademarks: The Duty of Candor/The Avoidance of Fraud, 97 Trademark Rep (2007) (co-author). Metadata: Ethical Obligations of the Witting and Unwitting Recipient,13 Ga. B.J. 30 (2008) (co-author). Metadata: Ghosts Haunting e-documents, 18 Ga. B.J. 16 (2008) (coauthor). Patent Agents: The Person You Are, 20 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 261 (2007). Avoiding Conflicts from Client s, co-authored with second year law student, 11 No. 3. J. Internet Law (2007). An Opinion of Counsel from Trial Counsel: A Handful of Sand?, 35 Am. Intell. Prop. L.Q.J. 171 (2007). Patents and Trademarks: The Duty of Good Faith, 89 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc y 287 (2007) (co-author) (invited reprint). Mining for Embedded Data: Is it Ethical to Take Intentional Advantage of Other Peoples Failures?, 8 N.C. J. L. & Tech. 231 (2007). Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents under the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: You Ask for it Back, but Then What? 12 Ga. B.J. 18 (2007). Don t Settle Your License Away, 69 Tex. B.J. 126 (Feb. 2006) (co-author). 4
112 The Speed of Normal: Conflicts, Competency, and Confidentiality in the Digital Age, 10 Computer L. Rev. & Tech. J. 73 (2006). Lawyers Still Worry Too Much About Transmitting Over the Internet, 10 J. Tech. L. & Pol y 265 (2005) (invited symposium submission) (co-author). To Whom it May Concern: Using Disclaimers to Avoid Disqualification by Receipt of Unsolicited from Prospective Clients, 16 Prof. Lawyer 1 (2005). I Can Tell When You re Telling Lies: Metadata in Litigation and Transactional Practice, 16 J. Legal Prof. 79 (2006) (invited submission). Why There Should Be Fewer Articles Like This One: Law Professors Should Write More for Legal Decision-Makers and Less for Themselves, 38 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 761 (2005) (co-author). The Ethical Responsibilities and Liability Risks Arising From Representing a Single Client in Multiple Patent-Related Representations: How Things Snowball, 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 421 (2005). Arbitration Clauses for On-Going Relationships, Jan/Feb Houston Lawyer (2005) (co-author). You re a Whole Different Person When You re Scared: Ethics on the Internet (Part I), Law Computing Magazine (Nov. 2004). Save a Little Room for Me: The Necessity of Naming as Inventors Practitioners Who Conceive of Claimed Subject Matter, 5 Loyola L. & Tech. J. 1 (2005) (reprinted; co-author). Infinite Combinations: Whether The Duty of Competency Requires Lawyers to Include Choice of Law Clauses in Contracts They Draft for Their Clients 12 Willamette J. of Int l L. & Disp. Res. 241 (2004). Reading Too Much Into Nothing: The Metaphor of Place and the Internet, 55 Mercer L. Rev. 855 (2004). Save a Little Room for Me: The Necessity of Naming as Inventors Practitioners Who Conceive of Claimed Subject Matter, 55 Mercer L. Rev. 635 (2004) (co-author). The Transmission and Receipt of Invisible Confidential Information, 8 ABA Consumer & Personal Rights Legislation Newsletter (Winter 2003/2004) (co-author). 5
113 Trouble Waiting to Happen: Malpractice and Ethical Issues in Patent Prosecution, 31 Am. Intell. Prop. L. Q.J. 387 (2003). The Use of Website Disclaimers Regarding the Obligation of Confidentiality for U.S. Law Firms 4 World Internet L. Rep. 29 (2003). The Truth Be Told? The Ethics of Using Undercover Testers and Investigators in Civil Litigation, VIII ABA Section of Litigation Consumer & Personal Rights Litigation Newsletter (2003). In the New Digital World, Old-World Ethics Still Apply, 4 World Internet L. Rep. 26 (2003). Troublesome Issues Facing Prosecuting Litigators and Their Firms, 21 Intell. Prop. Newsletter 16 (2003). Wrong About Everything: Application by the District Courts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) to Inequitable Conduct, 86 Marquette L. Rev. 895 (2003). Dragons Along the Information Superhighway, 29 L. Pract. Mgmt. 24 (2003). Aerial Boundaries: The Duty of Candor as a Limitation on the Duty of Patent Practitioners to Advocate for Maximum Patent Coverage, 44 So. Tex. L. Rev. 205 (2002). Hidden Dangers: ASPs and Ethics, Law Practice Management 32 (March 2002) (co-author). Life in Dark Waters: Ethical and Professional Responsibilities of Adjunct Law Professors, 42 So. Tex. L. Rev. 379 (2001). Disparities in Legal Ethical Standards Between State and Federal Judicial Systems, 13 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 577 (2000) (with Jae Ellis). Lawyer-Client Arbitration Agreements Require Care and Disclosure, Tex. Lawyer 62 (June 19, 2000). The Risks and Responsibilities of Attorneys and Firms Prosecuting Patents for Different Clients in Related Technologies, 8 Tex. Intel. Prop. L.J. 1 (2000). Lawyers Worry Too Much About Transmitting Client Confidences by Internet E- mail, 11 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 459 (1998). 6
114 Attorney Liability to Nonclients: Is Privity the Issue?, 9 Professional Lawyer, 1 (1998). Professionalism in Intellectual Property Practice, 16 Intell. Prop. 3 (1998). The 1998 Mass Tort Symposium: Legal Ethical Issues at the Cutting Edge of Substantive and Procedural Law, 17 Rev. Litig. 419 (1998). Remedies of the Infringer: The Use by the Infringer of Implied and Common Law Federal Rights, State Law Claims, and Contract to Shift Liability for Infringement of Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, 28 Tex. Tech. L. Rev (1997). Reflections of a Trial Lawyer on the Symposium: Dialogue with the Devil in Me, 38 So. Tex. L. Rev. 745 (1997). Uncertainty, Confusion, and Despair: The Impact of Legal Ethical Rules on Large Firm Practice, 16 Rev. Litig. 705 (1997). Confidentiality and Privilege in High-Tech Communications, 8 Prof. Law. 1 (1997). Confidentiality & Privilege in High-Tech Communications, 60 Tex. B.J. 104 (1997). Trade Secrets: An Update on the Impact of State and Federal Efforts to Broaden the Public Right of Access to Court Records, 23 Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass'n. Q.J. 161 (1996) (with Tom Adolph and Jayme Partridge). Batson, J.E.B. and Purkett: A Step-by-Step-by-Step Guide to the Three Step Process of Making and Challenging Peremptory Challenges in Federal Court, 37 So. Tex. L. Rev. 127 (1996) (with William Slusser and Matthew Eastus). Peremptory Challenges in Federal Intellectual Property Litigation, 2 IP Litigator 1 (1996) (with William Slusser). Price Erosion as Factor in Damages, 30 les Nouvelles 69 (June 1995) (with David Warden and Dudley Smith). The Allocation of the Risk of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Under Article 2 of the U.C.C., 20 Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass'n. Q. J. 71 (1992). 7
115 Blogs and Websites Chapters Combining Prosecution with Other Forms of Representation, in DRAFTING PATENTS FOR LITIGATION AND LICENSING (ABA/BNA 2008) (updated 2009, 2010, 2011) (2d ed. 2012) (3rd ed. forthcoming 2014)\). The American Legal System, in ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION: WRITING IN THE DISCIPLINES (University of Florida 2003). Opinion Pieces Make Patent Trolls Pay in Court, The New York Times (June 2013) (coauthor with Chief Judge Rader and Professor Chien). Hold Lawyers Liable for Misconduct, National Law Journal (Aug. 2011). Media Quotations Seduced: For Lawyers, the Appeal of Social Media Is Obvious. It s Also Dangerous, ABA J. (Feb. 2011). Metadata mining vexes lawyers, bars, Nat l L.J. (2008). Malpractice Issue Poses Quandary for Qualcomm, IPLA 360 (2008). Patent Malpractice Suits a Growing Threat, IPLAW 360 (2007). Targeting Depo Tactics, ABA Journal (Nov. 2006). Justices weigh key patent Issues (Nat l L. J. Oct. 2, 2006). H-P Case Sends Chill Through Bar, 27 Nat l L.J. 6 (2006). $2 Million Fee in 9/11 Case Draws Fire, 5 ABA J. E-REport 2 (2006). Ratings War, 5 ABA J. E-Report 1 (2006). Surfing for Lawyers, 5 ABA J. E-Report 4 (2006). Attorney Coupon Offer Clipped, 5 ABA Journal E-Report 4 (2006). How to Avoid Losing Your Patent, 19 The Scientist 34 (2005). Practice News, 93 Ill. B.J. 498 (2005). 8
116 Don t Buy this Ad: Missouri to Require Disclaimer Telling Potential Clients to Look Deeper, Vol. 4, No. 40 E-Journal Report (2005). Midstate looks at first female justice s legacy, Macon Telegraph (2005). The National Pulse: Opinion Clarifies Ex Parte Contact: Not All of Opponent s Employees Must Be Reached Through Attorney, Ohio Says, ABA Journal E-Report (2005). Should Lawyers Use to Communicate with Clients?, 92 Ill. B.J. 92 (2004). WMAZ (CBS, Macon, Georgia) (discussed the proposed amendments to the Georgia Constitution concerning same-sex marriage and certification of questions to the Georgia Supreme Court) (Nov. 1 & 2, 2004). Referendum question could change rules for Justices, Macon Telegraph 5B (2004). With Client Consent, Retainer Pacts Can Compel Arbitration of Fee Fights/Court Sidesteps Issue of Whether Such Clauses Can Repel Malpractice Suits, New Jersey Law Journal (2003). Do Not Read Unless You Agree to the Following., 48 A.B.A. J. E- Report (2002). Public Proceedings, Seminars, and Symposia Since 2002 Ethical Issues and Biosimilar Practice, 5th Annual Biosimilars Symposium (NY, NY June 2014). Lawyers, Ethics, and Money, 14 th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting (Denver, May 2014). Spotting Conflicts in Patent Litigation, Opinions, and Prosecution, AIPLA (Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Ass n, May, 2014). Spotting Conflicts in Patent Litigation, Opinions, and Prosecution, Ga. St. Bar. IP SpringPosium (Adairsville, GA April 2014). Judicial Ethics & Technology, Georgia Judicial Probate Judges CLE (Athens, GA, April 2014) Spotting Conflicts in Patent Litigation, Opinions, and Prosecution, AIPLA (national webinar, Apr. 2014). Prosecution Bars and Litigation Counsel, St. Mary s School of Law (San Antonio March 2014). Ethical Issues in Negotiation, Austin I.P. Inn of Court (Feb. 2014). 9
117 Ethical Issues in Negotiation, Arizona State Bar (Phoenix, Feb. 2014). Spotting Conflicts in Patent Litigation, Opinions, and Prosecution, U.S.P.T.O. (Alexandria, Jan. 2014). Adversity in Patent Practice, IPM Seminar (San Diego Nov. 2013). Ethics in Negotiation, AIPLA webcast (Oct. 2013) Ethics in Negotiation, Advanced IP Institute (Austin, Oct. 2013). Ethics in Post-AIA World, Dupont/Widener School of Law (Wilmington, Sept. 2013). Professionalism and Alternative Fee Agreements, Cleveland B. Ass n. (Sept. 2013). Professionalism and Alternative Fee Agreements, Cincinnati B. Ass n. (Sept. 2013). Ethical Issues in Doing Deals and Settling Suits, Carolina Patent, Trademark & Copyright Assoc. (Isle of Palms, SC Sept. 2013). We ve Adopted New Ethics Rules and a New Patent Statute: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?, Oklahoma B. Ass n. Intell. Property Section Hodding Carter Lecture on Legal Ethics (Dallas, June 2013). Webcast, Adversity in Patent Litigation, AIPLA YLD (May 2013). Webcast, Ethics in Patent Practice, AIPLA (April 2013) (with Ms. Meyer). Adversity in IP Practice, Univ. Tex. School of Law/USPTO (Alexandria, VA Jan. 2013). Misuse of Information in Patent Practice IPO (Washington, DC, Dec. 2012) (panel). Adversity in IP Practice, DuPont/Widener School of Law (Oct. 2012). Ethics and Professionalism in Today s Practice, Ga. St. B. Ass n. YLD (Atlanta, June 2012). Adversity in Patent Litigation, Opinions, and Prosecution, Ariz. Intell. Prop. L. Ass n (Phoenix, June 2012). Attorney Conduct During IP Litigation: The Award of Fees and Ethics, Rocky Mountain, 10 th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting (Denver, CO, May 2012). Real Ethical Issues in Patent Prosecution and Litigation, Assoc. of Pat. L. Firms (nationally broadcast webinar, May 2012). 10
118 Adversity in Patent Litigation, Opinion Work, and Prosecution: What we Know and What we Don t, Oklahoma B. Ass n. Intell. Property Section (Dallas June 2012). Community Property and Patent Ownership, Geo. Wash. Univ. School of L. (Wash. D.C. May 2012). Conflicts of Interest in Patent Practice, WSPLA Intell. Prop. L. Ass n. Meeting (Seattle Apr. 2012). TheraSense and Ethical Issues Under the AIA, Univ. of Tex. School of L. CLE (USPTO March 2012). Panelist, Huron Consulting 2012 E-Discovery Breakfast Briefing (with Magistrate Judges Peck and Baverman, and others) (Atlanta March 2012). Ethics & Professionalism, Kilpatrick Townsend Annual CLE (Feb. 2012). TheraSense Helped Some, University of Texas CLE, United States Patent & Trademark Office (Alexandria, VA Jan. 2012). Panelist, Ethical Issues in Patent Practice, AIPLA Mid-winter Meeting (Las Vegas, Jan. 2012). Professionalism in Intellectual Property Practice, Corporate Counsel Institute (Georgia State University School of Law, Nov. 2011). Is Your Patent Counsel Acting Unethically? Int l Performance Management Institute (Palm Springs, CA Nov. 2011). Ethics and Patents: Issues in 2011 and Maybe Beyond, Univ. Tex. School of Law (Austin, Oct. 2011). Ethics in Patent Practice, UNLV School of Law (Oct. 2011). Will TheraSense Ease Administrative Burden of Complex Domestic and International Patent Prosecution?, 2011 High Technology Summit (Center for Advanced Study & Research on Intellectual Property, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, July 2011). Texas Disciplinary Rules that Affect Patent Litigators, 7th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course (San Antonio, July 2011). How to Have Fewer Clients and Make More Money, Dunlap Codding Lecture in IP Ethics for the Oklahoma Intellectual Bar Association Annual Meeting (Dallas, TX, June 2011). How to Have Fewer Clients and Make More Money, 9 th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting (Denver, CO, June 2011). 11