Charles L. Gholz
Partner

Tel  (703) 412-6485 Fax  (703) 413-2220    [send e-mail]

Related News, Articles & Presentations

• Are District Court Orders Remanding 35 USC 146 Actions Appealable? (Articles)
  17 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 27 Jan 2010
• Could The ATJs Learn Something From The APJs Concerning Handling Fraud Issues? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 16 Dec 2009
• When Can APJs Use Their Common Sense in Inter Partes Proceedings? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 17 Nov 2009
• The Board Must Afford Interferents Due Process! (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 8 Oct 2009
• How Should “Copied” Claims Be Interpreted? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 11 Sep 2009
• Can You Put An Independent Fact Witness Under A Contract That Provides That He Or She Will Not Talk To Opposing Counsel Voluntarily? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 31 Aug 2009
• Have Ding v. Singer and Ryan v. Young Rationalized 35 USC 135(b)(2)? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 10 Jul 2009
• Request Rehearing! (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 14, Jun 2009
• Would Derivation Proceedings Be The Same as Derivation Interferences? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 8, May 2009
• Chambers USA 2009 Ranks Oblon, Spivak Among Top IP Firms in Northern Virginia (News)
  Jun 12, 2009
• Is It Ok To Lie To Opposing Counsel? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 30, Apr 2009
• Aristocrat v. IGT: Another Reason Why Provoking an Interference May Be Preferable to Defending an Infringement Action (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 12, Mar 2009
• A Critique of Recent Interference Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  91 JPTOS 1, Feb 2009
• Can Counsel for an Interferent Represent an Independent Fact Witness at a Deposition? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 18, Feb 2009
• Is Plausible Enough After Brand v. Miller? (Articles)
  16 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 20, Jan 2009
• What To Do If The Target Patent Has Expired (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 36, Dec 2008
• When Does Outside The Count Count? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 30, Nov 2008
• Telephone’s Inventorship Probed in New Book (Articles)
  76 PTCT 717, Oct 2008
• What Will Become of Patents Issued to Prevailing Applicant-Interferents As The Result of Decisions By Unconstitutionally Appointed APJs? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 12, Oct 2008
• Is 37 CFR 41.127(a) Valid Under Tafas v. Dudas? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 24 (2008) Sept 2008
• If You Settle a 35 USC 146 Action with A Stipulated Judgment, What Should It Say? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 9 Aug 2008
• Should an Applicant Interferent Ask to Have as Many as Possible of Its Opponent’s Motions Treated as Threshold Motions? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 18 Jul 2008
• Brand v. Miller Prevents Administrative Patent Judges From Using Their Common Sense in Inter Partes Proceedings, (Articles)
  90 JPTOS 5 Jun 2008
• Interference Estoppel is Worse Than Issue Preclusion (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 14 Jun 2008
• Chambers USA 2008 Ranks Oblon, Spivak Among Top Intellectual Property Firms in Northern Virginia (News)
  Jun 2008
• How Detailed Does Your List of Proposed Motions Have to Be? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 18 May 2008
• Can Narrowing Reissue Applications Still Be Used to Provoke Interferences? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 28 Apr 2008
• What Excuses for Inactivity During a Classical Diligence Period Are (and Are Not) Good? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 36 Mar 2008
• Interference Issues That Wouldn’t be Handled by The Proposed Legislation (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 32 Feb 2008
• The Most Interesting Interference Opinions of 2007 (Presentations)
  Presented at the Winter 2008 Meeting of the Interference Committee of the AIPLA Jan 2008
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  90 JPTOS 9 Jan 2008
• Is It Prudent to Be Named as Lead or Back-up Counsel by a Patent Practitioner Whose Power of Attorney Was Signed by the or a Named Inventor? (Articles)
  15 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 39 Jan 2008
• The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Decides in Favor of Convolve Against Seagate in Disk Drive Technology Interference (News)
  Jan 17, 2008
• What To Do If A Real Party In Interest Goes Bankrupt (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 22 Dec 2007
• Brand v. Miller Demonstrates that the Federal Circuit is Giving Insufficient Deference to the Factual Findings of the Patent and Trademark Office (Articles)
  89 JPTOS 848 Dec 2007
• Should the Prima Facie Case Include a Showing of the Lack of Suppression Or Concealment? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 20 Nov 2007
• Would You Rather Have Your Opponent’s Patentability Issues Decided Inter Partes or Ex Parte? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 37 Oct 2007
• Proving Peeler Diligence is Unnecessarily Difficult -- and Unnecessarily Costly (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 35 Sept 2007
• Would First-Inventor-to-File Be Better for the Basement Inventors, the Universities, or the Corporations? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 35 Aug 2007
• Is Brand v. Miller Consistent With KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 40 Jul 2007
• Chambers USA 2007 Ranks Oblon, Spivak #1 Again Among Intellectual Property Firms in Northern Virginia (News)
  Jul 2007
• Guidelines? What Guidelines? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 26 Jun 2007
• What Does “Any and All Right, Title, or Interest” Mean? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 16 May 2007
• Do Documents Generated by an Inventor Have to Be Corroborated? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 26 Apr 2007
• Who You Gonna Call? (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 7 Mar 2007
• Zealously Representing a Client Versus Collegiality (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 35 Feb 2007
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  89 JPTOS 1 (2007) Jan 2007
• Participation By A Victorious Interferent In the Losing Interferent’s Post-Interference Prosecution (Articles)
  14 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 39 Jan 2007
• What is the Time Limit for Filing a Cross-Action under 35 USC 146? (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 7 Dec 2006
• If You Try to Remove a 35 USC 102(a) or 102(e) Reference Via a 37 CFR 1.131 Declaration and Fail, You Have Probably Waived Your Right to Put on a Priority Case (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 8 Nov 2006
• It’s OK To Pay Fact Witnesses for Their Time (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 16 Oct 2006
• Must the Punishment Fit the Crime? (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 20 Sep 2006
• Corrections of “Obvious Mistakes” During an Interference (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 7 Aug 2006
• The Board Should Have 35 USC 256 Jurisdiction (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 10 Jun 2006
• When (If Ever) Is the Judgment of a District Court in a 35 USC 146 Action Binding on the Board? (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 30 May 2006
• When Does Reliance on Attorney Diligence Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege? (Articles)
  13 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 24 Apr 2006
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  88 JPTOS 217, 305 Apr 2006
• May a Practitioner Both Act as a Counsel in an Interference and Testify as to His or Her Diligence In Preparing an Application? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 13, No. 3 Mar 2006
• There Are Limits to How Tricky One’s Questioning Can Be (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 13, No. 2 at page 16 Feb 2006
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  88 JPTOS 25, 138 Feb 2006
• When Is the Declaration of an Interference a Ticket to Ride to the End of the Line? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 13, No. 1 at page 12 Jan 2006
• Sequestration of Interference Witnesses (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 12 at page 38 Dec 2005
• Expert Witness Problems - and Proposed Solutions (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 11 at page 30 Nov 2005
• Does the PTO Have Jurisdiction to Issue a Patent to an Applicant That Prevailed in a 35 USC 146 Action During the Pendency of an Appeal to the Federal Circuit by the Losing Patentee? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 10 at page 8 Oct 2005
• Tierney Interferences (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 9 at page 31 Sep 2005
• Errata Sheets in Interferences (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 8 at page 10 Aug 2005
• Does Reliance on Attorney Diligence Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 7 at page 32 Jul 2005
• The Trial Section Should Have An Analog To FRCP 50 (a)(1) (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 6 at page 30 Jun 2005
• Oblon, Spivak Ranks #1 on Chambers USA List of Intellectual Property Firms in Northern Virginia; Arthur Neustadt and Charles Gholz Named Top IP Attorneys (News)
  Jun 2005
• Markman Hearings For Interferences? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 5 at page 25 May 2005
• The Impact of the CREATE Act On Interferences (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 4 at page 39 Apr 2005
• A Suggestion For Saving Trees - And File Space At The Board (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 3 at page 12 Mar 2005
• Why Should Trial Section Decisions Be Given Any Deference During District Court Review? (Articles)
  IP Law Bulletin (Feb 28, 2005) Feb 2005
• Are Side Agreements Between Counsel Enforceable Before the Board? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 2 at page 23 Feb 2005
• A Critique of the New Rules and the New Standing Order in Contested Case/Interference Practice (Articles)
  87 JPTOS 62 Jan 2005
• What’s The Use Of 37 CFR 41.150(C)(2)? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 12, No. 1 at page 14 Jan 2005
• What To Do If Your Client Buys Your Opponent’s Case In Interference Late In The Game (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 11, No. 12 at page 26 (2004). Dec 2004
• How to Redact an Exhibit for Use in an Interference (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 11, No. 11 at page 16. Nov 2004
• What to Do if Your Client May Infringe Both of Two Interfering Patents? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 11, No. 10 at page 20. Oct 2004
• How Should We Deal With § 16.3 of the Trial Section's Standing Order? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 11, No. 9 at page 8 Sep 2004
• Must an Expert Witness's Opinion be "Supported by Cited Literature"? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 11, No. 8 at page 12, Aug 2004
• Videotaping Interference Testimony (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 11, No. 7 at page 10 Jul 2004
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  86 JPTOS 464, 2004
• How Hard Is It, Really, to Prove Derivation? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 12 at page 18 Dec 2003
• Targeting Applicants Should Be Expressly Authorized to File 37 CFR 1.313 Petitions to Withdraw Target Applications From Issuance for Consideration of a Possible Interference (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 11 at page 12, Nov 2003
• In 35 USC 146 Actions, Should District Courts Decide Issues That Were Not Reached by the Board? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 10 at page 42, Oct 2003
• Supplement to "Interference Practice Strategies" (Articles)
  85 JPTOS 531 (2003), 85 JPTOS 775, Sep 2003
• The Majority of a Three-Judge Panel of the Federal Circuit Has Approved the Two-Way Test of Winter v. Fujita-But Help May Be On the Way (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 9 at page 36, Sep 2003
• Sometimes the Trial Section Does Handle Patent-Patent Interferences After All! (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 8 at page 32, Aug 2003
• Oblon, Spivak Files Amicus Curiae Brief with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Interference Case (News)
  Aug, 2003
• Binding Precedent in the Trial Section of the BPAI (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 7 at page 10, Jul 2003
• Post-Interference Ex Parte Prosecution by a Losing Applicant Interferent (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 10, No. 6 at page 26, Jun 2003
• Interference Practice Strategies (Articles)
  85 JPTOS 531, 2003
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  85 JPTOS 401, Jan 2003
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  84 JPTOS 163, 2002
• "Patent Interference Proceedings Before the USPTO" (Articles)
  Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value, 2002
• Is It Safe Not to File a Copy of a Settlement Agreement Entered Into After Court Review of a Board Decision in an Interference Has Begun? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 9, No. 2, February 2002, page 28 Feb 2002
• A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  83 JPTOS 161, 2001
• Parallel District Court and ITC Patent Infringement Actions and PTO Interferences (Articles)
  Patent World, April 2001, page 19 and The John Marshall Law School News Source No. 1 (Winter 2001) at page 30. Apr 2001
• First-to-File or First-to-Invent? (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 82 JPTOS 891, December 2000 Dec 2000
• Why 35 USC 146 Practice Should Boom (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 7, No. 12, December 2000, page 48 Dec 2000
• Producing a Witness in an Interference for Cross-Examination Abroad (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2000, page 6 May 2000
• A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  82 Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society 296, April, 2000 Apr 2000
• Will Inter Partes Reexamination Be Embraced By Third Parties as an Alternative to Litigation? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 2000, page 37 Mar 2000
• Charles L. Gholz Receives Special Citation from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (News)
  Feb 2000
• The Black Hole of the Interference System (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 6, No. 11, November 1999, page 26 Dec 1999
• Festo Corporation vs. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., a/k/a SMC Corporation, and SMC Pneumatics, Inc. (News)
  Nov 1999
• The Decisions of the Board in An Interference Are Entitled to Issue-Preclusive Effect in a Parallel Patent Infringement Action But Not Vice Versa (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 6, No. 8, August 1999, page 8 Sep 1999
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 81, April 1999, pages 241-275 May 1999
• Multi-Patent Interference (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 5, December 1998, page 6 Dec 1998
• You Can Use Interferences to Save Big Bucks in Patent Litigation (Articles)
  17 Biotechnology Law Report 737 (1998) Dec 1998
• What's Left of In Re Braat After In Re Berg? (Articles)
  The Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 80, November 1998, pages 845-850 Nov 1998
• First Interference Involving 11 Patents--Such Interferences Offer Economic Benefits To Patent Owners (News)
  Oct 1998
• Why Are 35 USC 146 Actions Becoming So Popular? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 5, September 1998, pages 6-10 Oct 1998
• Is the Declaration of an Interference a Ticket to Ride to the End of the Line? (Articles)
  Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 5, May 1998, pages 31-35 Jul 1998
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 81, April 1999, pages 241-275 May 1998
• The BPAI and the TTAB are Required to Set Forth Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Adequate to Form a Basis for Appellate Review (Articles)
  The Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 80, January 1998, pages 5-10 Jan 1998
• The Law and Practice Under 35 USC 135(c) (Articles)
  80 Journal of The Patent and Trademark Office Society 561, 675 (1998) 1988
• Proposed Changes To The Interference Rules (Presentations)
  ABA-Intellectual Property Law Section program of Patent, Trademark & Copyright Law: Litigation and Corporate Practice Apr 1997
• A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  79 JPTOS 271 1997
• Patent Interferences -- Big Ticket Litigation With No Effective Discovery (Articles)
  1997
• Patent Law Roundtable: Discovery Interference (Articles)
  The Recorder, July 1997, pages 26-34. 1997
• Proposed Changes to the Interference Rules (Articles)
  79 JPTOS 555 1997
• US Rulings Muddle Patent Interference Law (News)
  IP Worldwide Jan/Feb 1997 p.11 Jan 1997
• A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences (Articles)
  78 JPTOS 550 1996
• Investive Versus Divestive Actual Reductions To Practice (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 78 (1996), pages 195-200 1996
• The Taking of Voluntary Testimonial Depositions in Japan for Use in U.S. Patent Interferences (News)
  78 JPTOS 138 1996
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 77 (1995), pages 427-49 1995
• Practicing Under The New Patent Interference Rules And New Rule 131 (Articles)
  Journal of Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 77 (1995), pages 858-70 1995
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 76 (1994), pages 649-85 1994
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 75 (1993), pages 448-83 1993
• What Article 1709(7) Of NAFTA Will Mean To Canadian Practitioners (Articles)
  Twenty-seventh Spring Meeting of the Patent and Trademark Institute of Canada, March 10, 1993 1993
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 73 (1991), pages 700-12 1991
• How The United States Currently Handles The Interference Issues That Will Remain In A First-To-File World (Articles)
  American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, volume 18 (1990), pages 1-17 1990
• Jurisdiction Of The Board Of Patent Appeals And Interferences To Decide Infringement Questions Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents (Articles)
  Journal of Patent and Trademark Office Society (1990), volume 72, pages 334-41 1990
• A Critique Of Recent Opinions Of The Federal Circuit In Patent Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 71 (1989), pages 439-59 1989
• Comment: Why First-To-File Should Not Mean The End of Interferences (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 69 (1987), pages 711-16 1987
• Old Rule Interferences After The Promulgation Of The New Rules (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, volume 68 (1986), pages 335-42 1986
• CAFC Reviews Of Interlocutory Decisions (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 1985, pages 417-46 1985
• Choice Of Law In The United States Circuit Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit (Articles)
  American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal, Volume 13 (1985), page 309. 1985
• Compelled Testimony, Testimony Abroad, and Protective Orders in Interference Proceedings Under the New Rules (Articles)
  67 JPTOS 239 1985
• The Impact of Statutory Invention Registrations on Interference Practice (Articles)
  67 JPTOS 645 1985
• Willful Infringement and "Magic Words" -- The Effect of Opinions of Counsel on Awards of Increased Damages and Attorney Fees (Articles)
  66 JPTOS 598 1984
• Best Mode -- Intent to Conceal (Articles)
  65 JPOS 436 1983
• Collateral Estoppel Effect of Decisions by the Board of Patent Interferences (Articles)
  30 DePaul L. Rev. 789 (1981), 65 JPOS 67 (1983) 1983
• Board Of Appeals Jurisdiction Over Appeals From Decisions By Primary Examiners Refusing To Institute Interferences On Modified Or Phantom Counts (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent Office Society, volume 64 (1982), pages 651-55 1982
• Failure To Perfect Claim To Priority During Pendency Of First-Filed U.S. Patent Application (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent Office Society, volume 63 (1981), pages 59-62 1981
• Review of Decisions Striking Patent Applications for Fraud (Articles)
  61 JPOS 52 1979
• "Establishing the Time the Invention Was Made" in Non-Obviousness: The Standard of Patentability in the United States (Articles)
  1978
• The Law of Double Patenting in the CCPA (Articles)
  4 APLAQJ 261 (1976), 16 Ind. Prop. 197 (1977) 1977
• Patent And Trademark Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Customs And Patent Appeals -- Part 1 (Articles)
  Previously published in the Journal of the Patent Office Society, volume 55 (1973), pages 69-85, and the George Washington Law Review, volume 40 (1972). 1973
• Patent And Trademark Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Customs And Patent Appeals -- Part II (Conclusion) (Articles)
  Journal of Patent Office Society (1973) volume 55, pages 184-202, and the George Washington Law Review (1972), volume 416. 1973
• The Defense of Patent Invalidity In Tarrif Commission Patent Actions (Articles)
  Journal of the Patent Office Society, Volume 55, No. 12, 1973, pages 791 794 1973

Related Events

• 2009 Annual Meeting
  American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). Marriott Wardman Park, Washington, D.C.. Oct 15-17, 2009
• Intellectual Property Law Association of Florida Meeting
  Intellectual Property Law Association of Florida. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Mar 16, 2009
• 19th Annual PTO Day
  Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO). Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, D.C.. Dec 1-2, 2008
• 2008 OPLA / WSPLA Annual Seminar
  Oregon Patent Law Association (OPLA)/Washington State Patent Law Association (WSPLA). Salishan Spa and Golf Resort, Gleneden Beach, Oregon. Apr 11-13, 2008