Utility Patent Or Trade Secret? Klaus Hamm November 1, 2017

Similar documents
Gottschlich & Portune, LLP

Patents. What is a Patent? 11/16/2017. The Decision Between Patent and Trade Secret Protection

Changing Landscape, US and Abroad 2017 In House Counsel Conference

Trade Secret Misappropriation and Remedies. (including a look at the new federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016)

Defend Trade Secrets Act: What You Need to Know. May 31, 2016

The Where, When And What Of DTSA Appeals: Part 2

Litigation Webinar Series. Trade Secret Protection and the Defend Trade Secrets Act: What s New, What s Different? Olga May Principal San Diego, CA

Trade Secrets Acts Compared to the UTSA

Trade Secrets. Alternative to Patent Protection. Paul F. Neils Jean C. Edwards. Copyright 2010, Paul F. Neils, Esq. All rights reserved

Protecting Your Trade Secrets Under the DTSA

Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE

BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL ALERT!

The Defend Trade Secrets Act: New Rights and Obligations for U.S. Employers

Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE SECRET PROTECTION

Harmonization? Interpreting the DTSA in Light of State Law

Recent U.S. Case Law and Developments (Patents) John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C.

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

SUBTITLE 12. MARYLAND UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT

Intellectual Property. EMBL Summer Institute 2010 Dusty Gwinn WVURC

MEMORANDUM OVERVIEW OF THE UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT

Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to

The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S.

United States District Court

Enforcement of Plant Variety IPR in the U.S.

Factors to Focus On: Federal Patent Preemption of State Trade Secret Law

Protection of trade secrets through IPR and unfair competition law

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

Trade Secrets Overview, Protection, and Litigation January 30, 2015 Mark C. Zebrowski

E. I. dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Christopher: Toward a Higher Standard of Commercial Morality

Patent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

High-Tech Patent Issues

(SUCCESSFUL) PATENT FILING IN THE US

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

In the Supreme Court of the United States

CASE 0:17-cv DSD-TNL Document 17 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 7. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No.

Remedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338

Patent Portfolio Licensing

ORDER. Plaintiffs, ZOHO CORPORATION, Defendant. VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC AND VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., CAUSE NO.: A-13-CA SS.

Patent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations

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

US Supreme Court Issues Important Opinion on Patent Eligibility of Computer- Implemented Inventions

Case 1:16-cv AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 21. Case No.

Basic Patent Information from the USPTO (Redacted) November 15, 2007

H. R. ll IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A BILL

Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y Tel: (212)

WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING

Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law

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

IP Panel: Protection for Nanotechnology Innovations

DAY ONE: Monday, February 26, 2018

IxANVL Binary License Agreement

How patents work An introduction for law students

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] H. R. ll. To amend title 35, United States Code, to restore patent rights to inventors, and for other purposes.

Case 1:11-cv JLH Document 43 Filed 05/20/12 Page 1 of 8

The Law of Marking and Notice Further Developed By The Federal Circuit: The Amsted Case by Steven C. Sereboff Copyright 1994, All Rights Reserved

SUDAN Patents Act Act No. 58 of 1971 ENTRY INTO FORCE: October 15, 1971

United States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13

... Revision,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ORDER

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER

Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Protect Trade Secrets and Enforce Non-Competes:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER

Cognitive Economy and the Trespass Fallacy: A Response to Professor Mossoff

Life in the Fast Lane: Intellectual Property Litigation at the ITC. July 11, 2017

Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D.

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

DTSA: A Federal Tort of Unfair Competition in Aerial Reconnaissance, Broken Deals, and Employment

2015 IP Law Year In Review John B. Sganga, Jr.

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

Intellectual Property Issue-Spotting for the General Practitioner

1. The following prime contract special provisions apply to this purchase order:

CUSTOMER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS A-160 HUMMINGBIRD CUSTOMER CONTRACT N

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Frequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark?

BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS IN THE UNITED STATES: A LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189

Patent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus

Glossary of Terms for Business Law and Ethics

Trade Secrets Act? Prof. Eric Goldman Santa Clara University School of Law

Trade Secrets -- Federal Patent Law Preemption of State Trade Secret Law -- Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.

Patent and License Overview. Kirsten Leute, Senior Associate Office of Technology Licensing, Stanford University

June 29, 2011 Submitted by: Julie P. Samuels Staff Attorney Michael Barclay, Reg. No. 32,553 Fellow Electronic Frontier Foundation

Intellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims

Patent Prosecution and Joint Ownership of United States Patents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

March 28, Re: Supplemental Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Dear Director Lee:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

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

Supreme Court of the United States

How to Handle Complicated IPRs:

END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Today s Patent Litigation Venue Considerations

Transcription:

Utility Patent Or Trade Secret? Klaus Hamm November 1, 2017

PATENT TRADE SECRET 2

WHICH IS BETTER? Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) Chief Justice Burger (majority): Trade secret law provides far weaker protection in many respects than the patent law. Justice Marshall (concurrence): State trade secret law provides substantial protection to the inventor... protection which in its unlimited duration is clearly superior to the 17-year monopoly afforded by the patent laws. 3

HISTORY 1400s in England & Italy U.S. Constitution (Art. I, 8, Cl. 8) Federalist No. 43 (Madison) 1790 patent act Jefferson & Washington signed patents Edison, Bell Roman slave law? Early 1800s common law 1939 Restatement 1979 UTSA Economic Espionage Act of 1996 2016 Defend Trade Secrets Act 4

HISTORY ADVANTAGE = 5

PRESTIGE Certificate $ Bonus CV Valuation Top secret 6

PRESTIGE ADVANTAGE = 7

PUBLIC PURPOSE Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, Art. 1, 8, Cl. 8 Encourage innovation by patentees Encourage innovation by third party innovators Encourage innovation Commercial ethics A most fundamental human right, that of privacy 8

PUBLIC PURPOSE ADVANTAGE = BOTH 9

PROPERTY A patent is property U.S. v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 187 (1933) Dissent (Douglas): A trade secret, unlike a patent, has no property dimension. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) [T]rade-secret property right under Missouri law... is protected by the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) 10

PROPERTY ADVANTAGE = BOTH 11

SOURCES OF LAW Complex Federal statute CFR; MPEP; USPTO guidance Case law: federal courts, PTAB, ITC Federal Circuit State law Uniform Trade Secrets Act Other state law Federal statute Many courts of appeals 12

SOURCES OF LAW ADVANTAGE = 13

WHICH LAW PREVAILS? Does not preempt trade secrets law Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) Preempts conflicting state law Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) Does not preempt patent law 1838: DTSA does not preempt state law (except whistleblower) State trade secret law preempts conflicting state law ORS 646.473: preemption ORS 646.461: exception for contract, criminal, public entity 14

WHICH LAW PREVAILS? ADVANTAGE = NEITHER 15

SECURING RIGHTS 111-115 Average time: 25.3 months Cost: $10K+ 1839(3)(A): reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy Alarms, ID badges, firewalls, passwords, fences, contracts, etc. 16

SECURING RIGHTS ADVANTAGE = 17

KEEPING RIGHTS 282: presumption of validity PTAB/Federal Court Prior art ( 102, 103) Helsinn v. Teva (Fed. Cir. 2017) 101, 112 invalidity Maintenance fees Disclosure No NDA Filings Patent application Previously known No maintenance fees, expiration Expiration 18

KEEPING RIGHTS ADVANTAGE = 19

SCOPE 101: any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter [I]mplicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) 1839(3): information that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known and not being readily ascertainable all types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including DTSA: whether tangible or intangible 20

SCOPE ADVANTAGE = NEITHER 21

DEFINING COVERAGE During prosecution Claims Markman No Need Licensing Litigation Cal. 2019.210 FRCP 26 Iqbal/Twombly 22

DEFINING COVERAGE ADVANTAGE = 23

DURATION Expires 20 years from filing Indefinite (until disclosure) 24

DURATION ADVANTAGE = 25

EXCLUSIVITY Exceptions: License, dueling patents Not exclusive ORS 646.461/ 1839(5) Reverse engineer Independent development 26

EXCLUSIVITY ADVANTAGE = 27

GEOGRAPHIC REACH 271(a): makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States 271(f): exporting components 271(g): importing product by process PCT; foreign patents State law in state harm Federal law 1836 permits suit regarding a trade secret related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce 1837 applies to conduct outside U.S. if (a) U.S. party or (b) act in furtherance in U.S. 28

GEOGRAPHIC REACH ADVANTAGE = 29

LITIGATION COST <$1m at risk: $873k $1m-$10m at risk: $2.2m $10-$25m at risk: $3.5m >$25m at risk: $6.3m $$$$ <$1m at risk: $516k $1m-$10m at risk: $1.2m $10-$25m at risk: $1.9m >$25m at risk: $4m $$$ 30

LITIGATION COST ADVANTAGE = 31

VENUE Federal court only No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents 1338 1400(b) venue limitation. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC (2017) Federal Circuit only. 1295 Federal court: federal and/or state claims (supplemental or diversity jurisdiction) Broad 1391(b) venue State court: state and federal claims 32

VENUE ADVANTAGE = 33

WHO CAN SUE? Constitutional standing: only owner and exclusive licensee Prudential standing : must join all potential plaintiffs 1836(b)(1): owner 1839(4): the person or entity in whom or in which rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in, the trade secret is reposed State law: possession of the secret, not the possession of some abstract or academic legal right of ownership in the secret 34

WHO CAN SUE? ADVANTAGE =? 35

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 286: 6 years damages No true statute of limitations Laches rare. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (2017) 1836(d) & ORS 646.471: 3 years from discovery or reasonably should have discovered continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim Laches rare 36

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ADVANTAGE = 37

PROVING LIABILITY Infringement 271: make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, certain exports All elements/doe Strict liability Inducing & contributory Misappropriation Acquiring, disclosing, using through improper means (theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach duty/contract, espionage) Scienter: knowledge or reason to know 38

PROVING LIABILITY ADVANTAGE = 39

REMEDIES Damages Enhanced damages Injunction Attorneys fees Damages Enhanced damages Injunction Attorneys fees Seizure 40

REMEDIES ADVANTAGE = 41

DAMAGES 284 in no event less than a reasonable royalty damages adequate to compensate for the infringement (lost profits) Trebling (willful) 287: marking hurdle ORS 646.467: not be less than a reasonable royalty damages adequate to compensate for misappropriation (lost profits) + Punitives 2x (willful/malicious) Unjust enrichment 42

DAMAGES ADVANTAGE = 43

OVERALL Prestige/History Reverse engineering protections Exclusivity No scienter requirement Cheap/easy to secure rights Non-patentable subject matter Indefinite duration Litigation advantages: cost, venue, remedies 44

OVERALL ADVANTAGE = IT DEPENDS 45

One World Trade Center 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 P: 503.595.5300 F: 503.595.5301 www.klarquist.com