Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect

Similar documents
Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011

Litigation Webinar Series. Hatch-Waxman 101. Chad Shear Principal, San Diego

Northern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules

Post-Grant for Practitioners

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patents

Using the ITC as a Trademark Enforcement Tool

FORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Litigation Webinar Series: INSIGHTS Our take on litigation and trial developments across the U.S. Current Landscape for NPE Litigation

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT!

Post-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB (Part 1) May 11, Thomas Rozylowicz Principal. Steve Schaefer Principal

How patents work An introduction for law students

CBM Eligibility and Reviewability

Post-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony. June 8, Steve Schaefer Principal

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

Enjoining Life Sciences Competition: A Review and Discussion

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform

Post-Grant Reviews Before The USPTO

The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

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

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

Patent Webinar Series

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

Detailed Table of Contents

LAWSON & PERSSON, P.C.

European Patent Litigation: An overview

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

Designing Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE LAW PROFESSOR

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217

Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review

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

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

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

Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER STEP ACTION RULE DATE DUE 1

Case 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18

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

Case3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12

USPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery

Case 0:16-cv WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2016 Page 1 of 10

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.

The Rocket Docket. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1901 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 109

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea:

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:

Case 2:16-cv JAK-AS Document 29 Filed 10/15/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:190

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

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

Changes at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP

PATENT TROLL LEGISLATION How it could affect your IP portfolio

Case 1:08-cv LPS Document 601 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Best Practices in Multi-Defendant Litigation

Patents Ownership. Inventor default owner of patent right

Germany. Henrik Holzapfel and Martin Königs. McDermott Will & Emery

AIPPI World Intellectual Property Congress, Toronto. Workshop V. Patenting computer implemented inventions. Wednesday, September 17, 2014

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

Freedom to Operate and Selected Issues

Information and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University

The Tundra Docket: Western District Of Wisconsin

February, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1

Case 3:17-cv AJB-KSC Document 1 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition

USPTO Post Grant Proceedings

U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

The American Court System BASIC JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS. Jurisdiction

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences

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

Case 2:15-cv JRG Document 144 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 6379

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

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

Conducting Effective Motion Practice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [MARSHALL / TYLER / TEXARKANA] DIVISION

Case 2:07-cv RCJ-GWF Document 1 Filed 12/26/2007 Page 1 of 6

CONTRACT DISPUTES: WINNING FROM THE BEGINNING

Case 2:14-cv PMW Document 4 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 20

Case 1:17-cv SLR Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

SO YOU THINK YOU HAD THE INVENTION IN PRIOR USE i

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013

Successfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO. Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept.

Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation

Transcription:

June 15, 2016 Litigation Webinar Series Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect Adam J. Kessel Principal, Boston Lawrence K. Kolodney Principal, Boston Jolynn M. Lussier Principal, Boston

Overview Litigation Series Key Developments & Trends Housekeeping CLE Contact: Jane Lundberg lundberg@fr.com Questions INSIGHTS Litigation Webinar Series Materials: fishlitigationblog.com/webinars #fishwebinar 2

Overview Basic Concepts in Patent Law (Larry) The Life Cycle of a Patent Case (Jolynn) Tricks and Tips (Adam) INSIGHTS Litigation Webinar Series 3

Basic Concepts What is a United States Patent? A legal instrument issued by the U.S. government Gives owner the right to exclude others from practicing an invention a right to sue infringers: For making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing invention Invention: A tangible thing, or a method of doing something useful Must be novel and non-obvious, compared to what came before Geographic scope: United States and its territories Term: Expires 20 years from the application filing date Ownership: Initially inventor or employer. Ownership may be transferred 4

Basic Concepts How to Read a Patent A Patent has Three Main Parts Cover Page Specification Claims 5

Basic Concepts How to Read a Patent Cover page Patent Number Title Inventor(s) Assignee Application Date Priority Documents References Cited Issue Date Abstract <Put a picture of a patent cover page here, and animate so that each element is highlighted as each bullet point appears> 6

Basic Concepts How to Read a Patent Specification Drafted by the inventor (or patent attorney) Explains how to make and use the invention the patent bargain Description + Figures May include multiple examples (embodiments) 7

Basic Concepts How to Read a Patent Claims Legally define scope of protection Each claim covers a distinct invention that is defined by its essential features or limitations Independent and dependent claims Infringement of one claim infringes the patent Independent Claim Dependent Claim 8

Basic Concepts How is a Patent Obtained? 9

Basic Concepts How is a Patent Obtained? Inventor Files a Patent Application Specification Proposed Claims 10

Basic Concepts How is a Patent Obtained? Inventor Files a Patent Application Specification Proposed Claims Patent Reviewed by a Patent Examiner Examiner searches for prior art May accept or reject claims Applicant may amend claims or argue 11

Basic Concepts How is a Patent Obtained? Inventor Files a Patent Application Specification Proposed Claims Patent Reviewed by a Patent Examiner Examiner searches for prior art May accept or reject claims Applicant may amend claims or argue Creates a public record (prosecution history) May be used by courts to interpret the claims 12

Basic Concepts How is a Patent Obtained? Inventor Files a Patent Application Specification Proposed Claims Patent Reviewed by a Patent Examiner Examiner searches for prior art May accept or reject claims Applicant may amend claims or argue Creates a public record (prosecution history) May be used by courts to interpret the claims The admitted prior art does not disclose or suggest assigning a score to each of the linked documents based on the scores of the one or more linking documents. Instead, the admitted prior art discloses assigning a rank to a document based on a degree to which search terms match the anchor descriptions in its backlink documents. 13

Basic Concepts What is Patent Infringement? Basic Concept: Without the permission of the patent owner, making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the claimed invention 14

Basic Concepts What is Patent Infringement? Basic Concept: Without the permission of the patent owner, making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the claimed invention Types of Infringement Direct Literal Doctrine of Equivalents Indirect Contributory Induced 15

Basic Concepts What is Patent Infringement? Basic Concept: Without the permission of the patent owner, making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the claimed invention Types of Infringement Literal Infringement Direct Literal Doctrine of Equivalents Indirect Contributory Induced Claim Limitation A B C D Present? Yes Yes Yes Yes 16

Basic Concepts What is Patent Infringement? Basic Concept: Without the permission of the patent owner, making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the claimed invention Types of Infringement Direct Literal Doctrine of Equivalents Indirect Contributory Induced Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement Claim Limitation A B C D Present? Yes Yes Yes No, but equivalent 17

Basic Concepts What is Patent Infringement? Basic Concept: Without the permission of the patent owner, making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the claimed invention Types of Infringement Direct Literal Doctrine of Equivalents Indirect Contributory Induced Contributory Infringement Claim Limitation A B C D Present? Yes Yes Yes No, but needed for practical use of product 18

Basic Concepts What is Patent Infringement? Basic Concept: Without the permission of the patent owner, making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the claimed invention Types of Infringement Direct Literal Doctrine of Equivalents Indirect Contributory Induced Claim Limitation A B C D Induced Infringement Present? When used as directed When used as directed When used as directed When used as directed 19

Basic Concepts What is Patent Invalidity? Basic Concept: Accused infringers can challenge the validity of the patent In litigation In an administrative proceeding at the PTO No liability of infringed patent if found invalid Main types of Invalidity Anticipation Obviousness Non-patentable subject matter Laws of nature Abstract ideas Inadequate Disclosure 20

Basic Concepts Remedies for Infringement Damages Reasonable Royalty Lost Profits Injunction Types Preliminary Permanent Formal requirements Proof of infringement (or likelihood of success) Irreparable harm from infringement Balance of hardships Public Interest Practical requirements Competition Invention must drive demand for the product Running royalty For future infringement Available instead of injunction 21

US Patent Litigation Federal Court 94 US District Courts and 677 US District Court Judges Map from http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuit%20map.pdf 22

US Patent Litigation Basic Action Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent and may be sued in a US District Court. 28 US Code 271(a) and 281 23

US District Court Patent Litigation 7000 6000 5454 6090 5767 5000 5008 4000 3900 3351 3000 2608 2559 2000 1000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 24

US District Court Patent Litigation Data from 01-01-2008 to 06-06-2016 Five US District Courts get more than 50% of all patent cases 40% of the cases are litigated in two jurisdictions 25

New Patent Cases Selected US Courts 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EDTX DEL NDCA MASS EDVA 26

Typical US Patent Litigation Timeline 27

Typical US Patent Litigation Timeline *Time to trial from 2015 PwC Patent Litigation Study 28

US Patent Litigation Median Patent Litigation Costs, Reported in 2015 AIPLA Survey 29

Case Start Phase 1 Be sensible 1. Objectively identify the business case for suit (patent owner), assess the potential risk (defendant) 2. Do your due diligence gather / evaluate relevant documents and witnesses Must take steps to preserve information Search for, retain experts Search for invalidating prior art Select counsel Pleadings patent owner s complaint must be robust Scheduling Conference 1. Court will set schedule for the case and discovery limits (depositions, documents production, etc.) 2. First opportunity to assess the Court 30

Typical Patent-Specific Events Phase 2 Infringement Contentions Patent Owner 1. Identify asserted claims 2. Identify accused products 3. Provide claim charts a detailed explanation of how each limitation in each claim is met by the accused products Invalidity Contentions Defendant 1. Identify each invalidity theory 2. Identify prior art (patent, product, e.g.) 3. Provide claim charts a detailed explanation of how the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims Contentions are specifically prescribed in some US Courts that have adopted local patent rules (EDTX, NDCA, e.g.) 31

Typical Patent-Specific Events Phase 2 Claim Construction Discovery Party exchange 1. Identify each term requiring construction 2. Identify proposed constructions and supporting evidence (patent, pros. history, or dictionary, e.g.) 3. Brief merits of parties respective positions Claim Construction Hearing (Markman hearing) 1. Court holds a hearing and decides the meaning of disputed terms in asserted claims 2. Can be pivotal outcome of the case may depend on the meaning of just a few claim terms 3. First real opportunity to objectively assess the Judge as well as merits of the parties competing positions 4. Can be coupled with a technology tutorial 32

Patent-Specific Discovery Considerations Phase 2 Phase 3 Court Orders 1. Protective Orders limit access to a party s sensitive business and technical information 2. E-discovery orders facilitate electronic exchange of large volumes of data between parties (documents, emails, e.g.) 3. Case-specific orders limiting access to source code, formulas Discovery Events 1. Inventor depositions 2. Patent lawyer depositions 3. Third-party depositions to establish prior art 33

Expert Reports Phase 3 Typically retain two technical and damages expert 1. Key witnesses, may be pricey 2. Reports exchanged after claim construction decision Technical report 1. Explains technology 2. Provides detailed infringement and invalidity opinions based on the Court s claim constructions Damages report 1. Provides amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement 2. Typically only US-related revenue at risk 3. Measure of damages can be a combination of lost profits, reasonable royalty, lump sum, price erosion Perilous to skimp reports should include all trial graphics 34

Summary Judgment Phase 4 Dispositive motions when no genuinely disputed material facts regarding an issue, and based on those facts, party wins Potential big upside: 1. May eliminate a claim or defense 2. Partial wins also strategic victories may eliminate a class of products from the case Court may hear a dispositive motion early on, but circumstances must be compelling There are benefits even if the motion is denied: 1. Draw out the other side s proof 2. Educate the Court 3. Evaluate/reshape your trial presentation A dispositive motion (patent cases) succeeds 30% of the time* *From Docket Navigator analytics for 2008-2015. Includes all orders regarding infringement, validity, enforceability, statute of limitations, equitable defenses, and prior license. 35

Pre-trial and Trial Phase 5 Pre-trial 1. Exchange witness / exhibit lists, jury instructions, verdict forms 2. Rulings on evidentiary challenges exhibits, witnesses including experts (Daubert motions), demonstratives Trial 1. Only 2% of patent cases get to trial* 2. Patent owner must prove infringement and damages, as more likely than not 3. Defendant must prove invalidity under a higher burden, clear and convincing proof Most expensive phase 1. Mock trial exercises assess case themes; test issue strengths and vulnerabilities 2. Graphics great tool for explaining technology *From Lex Machina based on cases filed between 01-01-2006 and 06-06-2016 36

Tips and Tricks for Patent Litigation Pre-suit Document retention and collection Settlement discussions Attorney-client privilege Inventors Identifying targets Bringing Suit Venue Declaratory Judgment Public Statements During Suit Design Around Face of the company witness Experts Remedies 37

Tips and Tricks Pre-suit: Document Retention/Collection Risks from lost documents Preservation duty begins when litigation is reasonably anticipated, not necessarily filed Document retention/destruction policy Have one But cannot blindly follow May need to suspend routine destruction Document retention memorandum Update early and often Identify and re-identify recipients Collect early (pre-suit if possible) to have head start Consider litigation access/filtering in designing storage systems E.g., keep key design documents readily accessible, develop norms to protect attorney-client communications 38

Tips and Tricks Pre-suit: Settlement Discussions Take opportunity to resolve without substantial legal expense and risk Risks to consider in settlement discussions Losing preferred forum Discoverability of negotiations Setting bad precedent, e.g. low royalty rate Anchoring expectations Unintentionally making lawyers (or others) fact witnesses Provoking undesired lawsuit 39

Tips and Tricks Pre-suit: Privilege Attorney-client privilege protects communications between client and attorney in furtherance of legal advice Work product materials prepared in anticipation of litigation by or at direction of attorney Minimize pre-suit discussions that do not involve attorneys Not necessarily adequate to simply copy attorneys on all emails Risk of waiver Narrow vs. broad subject-matter waiver Common-interest / joint-defense protection Agreement re inadvertent disclosure / clawback 40

Tips and Tricks Pre-suit: Inventor Interviews Identify all inventors, including possibly omitted inventors Institute document retention Be sure to get the whole story of the invention Identify pitfalls/weaknesses early to allow for better planning Get agreements with inventors who have left the company As accused infringer, reach out to inventors who have left to see if they are available as consultants Construct case themes around inventor stories 41

Tips and Tricks Pre-suit: Identifying Targets Start small and then go big Start big and then go small Manufacturers vs. retailers vs. consumers Direct vs. Indirect Infringement Competitors vs. Others Consider litigation strategies and incentives of potential targets 42

Tips and Tricks Bringing Suit: Venue Pro-plaintiff vs. pro-defendant fora Judges/Rules Jurors Risk of transfer Home court advantage Speed of resolution Local patent rules/practices Predictability/size of bench Cost considerations 43

Tips and Tricks Bringing Suit: Declaratory judgment Declaratory judgment (or DJ ) allows accused infringer to control forum and pace Sends message that accused infringer believes it is in the right May get quick resolution if patent owner is not ready or able to litigate 44

Tips and Tricks Bringing Suit: Public Statements Often better to be first one to frame dispute Public statements likely admissible evidence Risk of inconsistencies, particularly where public statements precede litigation positions Often disfavored by judges 45

Tips and Tricks During Suit: Design Around Lowers past damages Eliminates future damages Risk of willfulness if design around is ineffective Risk of being perceived as admission of infringement Risk can be mitigated 46

Tips and Tricks During Suit: Face of the Company Witness Identify early Important to tell story of company, even if not directly relevant to any specific issue in the case Usually high level executive or marketing person 47

Tips and Tricks During Suit: Experts Critical to getting to (or avoiding) a jury Technical and damages Identify best people early on (pre-suit if possible) Can be retained even if they won t testify Qualifications True subject matter expert Professional experienced experts 48

Tips and Tricks During Suit: Remedies Reasonable royalty (always available) Typically only for competitors Lost profits Injunction factors: Irreparable harm Damages inadequate Balance of hardships Public interest Survey experts 49

Questions? 50

Thank you! Adam J. Kessel Principal, Boston 617-368-2180 kessel@fr.com Lawrence K. Kolodney Principal, Boston 617-521-7002 kolodney@fr.com Jolynn M. Lussier Principal, Boston 617-521-7810 lussier@fr.com Please send your NY CLE forms or questions about the webinar to Jane Lundberg at lundberg@fr.com. A replay of the webinar will be available for viewing at http://fishlitigationblog.com. 51

Copyright 2016 Fish & Richardson P.C. These materials may be considered advertising for legal services under the laws and rules of professional conduct of the jurisdictions in which we practice. The material contained in this presentation has been gathered by the lawyers at Fish & Richardson P.C. for informational purposes only, is not intended to be legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Legal advice of any nature should be sought from legal counsel. Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Fish & Richardson P.C. will not be considered confidential and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Fish & Richardson P.C. or any of our attorneys. Furthermore, these communications and materials may be disclosed to others and may not receive a response. If you are not already a client of Fish & Richardson P.C., do not include any confidential information in this message. For more information about Fish & Richardson P.C. and our practices, please visit www.fr.com. #1 Patent Litigation Firm (Corporate Counsel, 2004 2015) 52