WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM FOR HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES

Similar documents
John Fargo, Director Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division Department of Justice.

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

Damages and Remedies in Civil IP Cases An U.S. Perspective

DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY

Belgium. Belgium. By Annick Mottet Haugaard and Christian Dekoninck, Lydian, Brussels

IP system and latest developments in China. Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. June, 2015

Intellectual Property Enforcement Ali S. Razai. OCPA Annual Educational Conference September 15, 2018

Discovery in a patent infringement suit in Japan particularly about secrecy order (protective order)

Chief Judge of the IP High Court Makiko Takabe

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

S 2822 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

Patent Litigation in Taiwan: overview

WIPO INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

LAWSON & PERSSON, P.C.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOREIGN PLAINTIFFS IN IP LITIGATION IN CHINA

Canada Intellectual property enforcement

Enforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies

Industry Perspectives on Patent Damages Including the Damages Component of Settlement Negotiations By Charles W. Shifley

CHAPTER TEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Mediation/Arbitration of

LEGAL INFORMATION NEWSLETTER. No. 5 September, 2011

France Baker & McKenzie SCP

Technology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy

CONSOLIDATED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES MADE DURING THE SEPTEMBER 2010 TOKYO ROUND. Consolidated Text. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION

Norway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS

THE ITC S GROWING ROLE IN PATENT ADJUDICATION. The View from the Bar

Intellectual Property Reform In Australia

Q: Will the plaintiff succeed at trial?

Design Protection in Europe

Common law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S.

9 The Enforcement of Patent Rights in Japan (*)

CHINA S SUPREME PEOPLE S COURT HAS CLARIFIED FOUR TYPES OF IP RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE CASES TO BE HEARD BY SPECIAL IP TRIBUNALS

Contributing firm. Author Henning Hartwig

Designs. Germany Henning Hartwig BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbb. A Global Guide

Alternative Way to Deal with Patent Litigation in China. Christopher Shaowei NTD Intellectual Property Attorneys Prepared for China PI Held in Paris

U.S. Design Patent Protection. Finnish Patent Office April 10, 2018

Chapter 1 DEFINITION OF TERMS. There are various types of IP rights. They can be categorized as:

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea:

A D A M S & A D A M S B R I C S I P F O R U M

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC ( Green Pet Shop or. Plaintiff ), by and through its attorneys, THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C.

The Consolidate Utility Models Act 1)

Decade History and Future Prospects of Intellectual Property High Court Chief Judge of the Intellectual Property High Court Shitara, Ryuichi

Building and enforcing intellectual property value An international guide for the boardroom 11th Edition

CHAPTER 1. DISCLOSING EXPERT WITNESSES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES: AN OVERVIEW

Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and PATENT Act (S. 1137): A Comparison of Key Provisions

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).

Draft for Patent Invalidity Rates in Japan

Decree No. 105/2006/ND-CP Providing Detailed Regulations and

Case 4:17-cv RP-SBJ Document 1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

Recent Developments in IP Enforcement in Korea

Israel Israël Israel. Report Q192. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND

... Revision,

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

GERMANY Act on Employee Inventions as last amended by Article 7 of the Act of July 31, 2009 I 2521

Patents in Europe 2011/2012. Greece Lappa

IP ENFORCEMENT IN CHINA

Unit 3 Dispute Resolution ARE 306. I. Litigation in an Adversary System

OUTLINE AND EVALUATION OF THE DOUBLE TRACK SYSTEM IN JAPAN--- INVALIDITY DEFENSE IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATIONS AND INVALIDITY TRIALS AT JPO

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013

TRIUMF PATENT PLAN. TRIUMF Patent Plan. 1. General

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236 COMPLAINT

ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.

Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State, etc.

THE IP5 OFFICES AND THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

Patent Reform Act of 2007

The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation

The Five (or More) Forums for Your Trademark Dispute, and How to Choose the Right One (Hint: Don t Choose the ITC)

OVERVIEW OF CROATIAN BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM

Brazil Brésil Brasilien. Report Q192. in the name of the Brazilian Group. Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Case 1:14-cv JPO Document 2 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 14. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT

The US-China Business Council (USCBC)

DAY ONE: Monday, February 26, 2018

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE

C O H E N, T O D D, K I T E & S T A N F O R D, L L C

Annex 2 DEFINITIONS FOR TERMS AND FOR STATISTICS ON PROCEDURES

IP Enforcement: Domestic and Foreign Litigants in the ITC and U.S. District Courts

INVALIDITY DEFENSE IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATIONS IN JAPAN. July 25,2014 Chief Judge Ryuichi Shitara Intellectual Property High Court

Purchase Agreement TERMS AND CONDITIONS PRICES PAYMENT AND PAYMENT TERMS. Bright Ideas. Better Solutions. Benchmark is Branch Automation.

Sample Licensing Agreement

EMC Proven Professional Program

PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMME UPDATES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: LAWS AND PRACTICES MODULE 3- ELECTIVE PAPER 9.4

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine

NTT DOCOMO Technical Journal. Akimichi Tanabe Takuya Asaoka Katsunori Tsunoda Makoto Kijima. 1. Introduction

How patents work An introduction for law students

Creative and Legal Communities

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :

Anti-Monopoly Law of The People s Republic of China (Draft for Comments) April 8, Chapter 1: General Provisions

Case 2:04-cv TJW Document 424 Filed 03/21/2007 Page 1 of 5

Introduction. Viet D. Phan ( * )

Case 2:13-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 16

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICY

BUSINESS TORTS / COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: EFFECTIVE TRIAL TECHNIQUES

Applicant Co Applicant. Address. City State Zip. Home Phone# Cell Phone# Address Birth Date DL# SS# Sponsor Name

Germany. Stefan Abel and Pascal Böhner. Bardehle Pagenberg

SERVICE AGREEMENT XX-XXXX-XXX-XX

THE IP5 OFFICES AND THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

Transcription:

ORIGINAL: English DATE: July 2002 E MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (SIPO) WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION JAPAN PATENT OFFICE WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM FOR HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Government of the People s Republic of China, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of the People s Republic of China, the Guangdong Bureau of Science and Technology and the Guangdong Intellectual Property Administration and with the assistance of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) Guangzhou, China, July 10 to 12, 2002 ACTIONS AND REMEDIES AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS FOR THE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF COMBATING PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING Document prepared by Mr. Donald Bollella, Chief Patent Counsel, Burstein Technologies, Inc., Irvine, United States of America c:\winnt\apsdoc\nettemp\1568\ $asqbollella 6(a).doc

page 2 INTRODUCTION The patenting process is a long, complicated, and expensive process. Thus when Intellectual Property (IP) owners commit resources to develop their innovations and protect them with duly issued patents and other intellectual property; issues regarding enforcement should be analyzed. Typically, intellectual property in the form of patents, copyrights, trademarks and service marks, trade secrets, mask works, geographical indications, and industrial designs is enforced in national or regional courts having jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving such intellectual property. Jurisdiction over enforcement is usually granted to the judiciary by national or state legislation. In addition to judicial resolution of intellectual property disputes, parties often invoke alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as local or international arbitration, which may be binding or non-binding. Under binding arbitration, the adverse parties thereto agree in advance that the arbitrator s final ruling will be binding and not subject to judicial review. Advantages of arbitration are that it is typically less expensive than litigation and a final ruling is usually rendered in a shorter period of time. A benefit of binding arbitration is that the final judgment of the arbitrator is final and typically non-reviewable by the courts. In this manner, the typical lengthy periods for appeals are not permitted and the parties must accept the ruling of the arbitrator. This is an advantage for the successful party but may be considered a disadvantage by the losing party. The present paper discusses actions, remedies, and dispute resolution mechanisms for the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights. The economic benefits of combating piracy and counterfeiting are also addressed. This paper is thus divided into two parts. Part I is directed to actions and remedies for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Since the majority of actions for IP infringement are filed in courts, Part I of the paper will focus on judicial actions and related remedies. Part II of the paper is directed to a brief economic discussion of the benefits of combating piracy and counterfeiting. This part of the paper is presented from both an individual nation s domestic point of view as well as from an international perspective. PART I Actions and Remedies for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights A. Preparing for Enforcement Before filing an action for intellectual property infringement, the IP owner must be sure of his case. For purposes of illustration, the following discussion will focus on patent actions since patent infringement is typically the most complex and expensive, and typically leads to the largest findings of damages at times in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars. One of the first tasks in establishing patent infringement is for the patent owner to purchase at least one of the accused products. The accused device is then inspected or reversed engineered to determine with certainty that the defendant s products infringe the claims of the patent. Often times when complex technologies are involved, this process of reading the claims on the accused device is not a simple matter because fully understanding all technical aspects of the accused product requires a high level of technical expertise. In further preparing for enforcement, the patent owner will often hire a private law firm to draft a validity opinion and/or an infringement opinion. In a validity opinion, the law firm

page 3 first conducts and validity search of the prior art that may not have been cited to the patent office ducting prosecution of the patent application. The attorneys then study this new prior art to determine with a high degree of certainty that the issued patent is indeed valid over all possible prior art. The patent owner will also usually have the private law firm prepare an independent formal opinion that the accused products or methods infringe the patents at issue. B. Preparing for Litigation Once a patent owner has determined that its patents are infringed by a competitors products, the patent owner typically puts the accused infringer on actual notice by issuing an offer-to-license letter or a cease-and-desist letter. The offer-to-license letter is a relatively non-threatening invitation to initiate business discussions directed licensing the patent owner s patents. As an alternative to the offer-to-license letter, or in the case when such an invitation has been issued but ignored, the patent owner may issue a cease-and-desist letter. This type of letter is usually prepared with consultation from expert patent counsel. It clearly identifies the accused products, for example by model number or trade name, and the patents which are believed to be infringed by the identified products. This type of letter typically concludes with a statement that if the alleged infringer does not cease and desist with the manufacture, sale, or distribution of infringing products, the patent owner intends to sue the alleged infringer in court. If the infringing activity is not discontinued after a reasonable period of time from when the cease-and-desist letter was issued, the patent owner then files its complaint in court. C. Filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement Once the patent owner has decided to sue an alleged infringer, a complaint for patent infringement is filed in a court having jurisdiction over the matter. The patent owner typically always retains a private law firm having expertise in patent litigation to handle the infringement case. It is the patent litigation attorneys in these law firms who draft the complaint and represent the patent owner before the courts of competent jurisdiction. After the complaint for patent infringement is filed with the court, the accused infringer prepares and files its answer to the complaint. The defendant s answer typically includes a number of defenses. These defenses usually include non-infringement, patent invalidity, antitrust violations, patent misuse, and non-enforceability due to fraud or inequitable conduct. D. Pre-Trial Discovery In U.S. style litigation, a period of pre-trial discovery is conducted before commencement of the actual in-court trial, which may be argued before a jury. Pre-trial discovery is the process of collecting information and documentation from the opposing party by way of depositions, demands for documents, responses to interrogatories, and factory inspections. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to the court-ordered process of discovery. The demands for discovery are usually issued under the subpoena power of the court. If the opposing party is uncooperative with the discovery demand, the court may issue an order of contempt. This may include jail time and monetary fines. E. The Patent Infringement Trial

page 4 Once discovery closes, the parties prepare for trial. Preparation for trail usually includes an active period of motion practice. Dispositive motions are those that would dispose of the litigation if granted in their entirety. Such motions include motions for summary judgment where there are no material issues of fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Other typical motions include motions by the patentee/plaintiff for a preliminary injunction. If granted, the preliminary injunction will prevent the defendant from continuing the allegedly infringing activity during the course of trial. If a trial is necessary, a jury will be empanelled. The trial then proceeds with opening statements, testimony from called witnesses, and closing arguments. Shortly after the trial is completed, post-trial motions are often filed with the court. The count then issues its judgment - either for the plaintiff/patentee or for the defendant. F. Court Ordered Remedies If the plaintiff/patentee is successful, the court will order that the defendant compensate the plaintiff/patentee for the damage caused by the infringement. This compensation takes the form of either lost profits when such lost profits can be proven and are not speculative, or compensation based on a reasonable royalty calculation. Under U.S. litigation standards if the infringement is intentional, the damages may be trebled by court order. This trebling of damages is intended to be punitive in nature. PART II A Brief Discussion of the Economic Benefits of Combating Piracy and Counterfeiting A. Costs of Piracy and Counterfeiting Most economists would agree that the costs of piracy and counterfeiting are undesirable from both a domestic point of view and from the international trade perspective. When piracy and counterfeiting prevail in a domestic economy, local, state, and national governments are prevented from collecting taxes on what otherwise would be legitimate business activity. In addition thereto, and perhaps more importantly, piracy and counterfeiting have a chilling effect on domestic research and development (R&D). The intellectual property system provides an incentive for national business organizations to invest in research and development. In many industries, the costs of research and development are high. If a business organization can rely on the IP system for protection, it will then invest in R&D since it can thereby recover its investment by way of profits in the market place while preventing infringers from having a free ride - that is, selling infringing products without have to shoulder the cost for R&D. On the international front, when a particular nation is known to have a high occurrence of piracy and counterfeiting, foreign investors may be dissuaded from promoting R&D activities in that nation. Such activities may include forming joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, distribution arrangements, franchises, licensing, and marketing agreements. The loss of such foreign investment can have a substantial impact on the domestic economy in a developing nation.

page 5 B. Economic Benefits of Supporting the Intellectual Property System Thus in view of the above, one may appreciate that the economic benefits of supporting the intellectual property system are multifold. Firstly, a strong national IP system promotes the development of national industries by protecting the inventors market so that he may recover his costs of developing the innovation without having to worry that free riders will under-cut his prices since they have no R&D costs to recover. Secondly, supporting the IP system results in a more orderly and equitable market place because consumers are thereby better assured that the products and services they purchase are supplied by reputable manufactures that are concerned with their reputation for quality. Thirdly, a reliable national IP system attracts foreign investment. Such foreign investment improves the tax base and typically results in the creation of employment. And fourthly, a well-maintained IP system facilitates the creation of wealth and employment by giving protectable life and thus economic value to innovation. Intellectual property is therefore a means for increasing the economic activity anywhere there is creative human activity - which by some estimations - is everywhere. [End of document]