What to Do When Facing a Patent Infringement Law Suit. Presented by: Robert W. Morris

Similar documents
Patent Trial and Appeal Board. State of the Board

Starting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding

2016 ANALYSIS ON PTAB CONTESTED PROCEEDINGS

reporter 2017 Analysis ON PTAB contested proceedings introduction

Doing Business in the United States: Practical Steps for Success in the World s Largest Life Sciences Market

Paper 11 Tel: Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Practical and Effective Cost Containment in Patent Litigation

Paper Entered: May 12, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 9 Tel: Entered: April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant, APPLE INC., Appellee.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. INGURAN, LLC d/b/a SEXING TECHNOLOGIES, Petitioner

Paper No Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

A Proposed Rule For En Banc PTAB Review

ST CENTURY PATENT REFORM THE COALITION FOR Agenda for Patent Reform

April 14, Statement of J Kyle Bass Chief Investment Officer, Hayman Capital Management, L.P.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner

Paper Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

USPTO PROPOSES AIA-BASED PATENT FEE CHANGES

Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips

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

CHAPTER 1. Overview of the AIA. Chapter Contents. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No , 125 Stat. 284 (2011). 2

November 2, Dear AIPPI National Groups:

December 2, Via

Case 4:10-cv TSH Document 1 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

RK Mailed: May 24, 2013

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Paper Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SECURE AXCESS, LLC,

Priority Rights and AIA Drafting Error; Universities at Risk

Lead Judge Michael Tierney, Covered Business Method Patent Review United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA 22313

How Will Patent Reform Affect the Software and Internet Industries? The Computer & Internet Lawyer December 2011

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NEW PATENT PROSECUTION HIGHWAY PILOT PROGRAM BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CHINA

Treatment of Business Method Patents in Pending Patent Reform Legislation: Bilski Backlash? BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal July 15, 2011

Paper 16 Tel: Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

Using Supplemental Examination Effectively to Strengthen the Value of Your Patents BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal September 30, 2011

Patenting in the Age of Crowdsourcing: An Expanded Opportunity for Third Party Participation

D-1-GN NO.

Applicants who meet the definition for small (50%) or micro entity (75%) discounts will continue to pay a reduced fee for the new patent fees.

PATENT-ASSIGNMENT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN BRAND-NAME DRUG COMPANIES AND NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES WILL UNDERMINE A HEALTHY PATENT SYSTEM AND HARM PATIENTS

A (800) (800)

Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Testimony of David B. Kelley, Intellectual Property Counsel Ford Global Technologies, LLC

15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Implications of the America Invents Act for Income Tax Patent Valuations

Proposed collection; comment request; Fee Deficiency Submissions. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC, Appellant. UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO)

CASE NO. 1D Appellant seeks relief from the trial court s order that incorporated the

Re-Examination Request: To File Or Not To File?

USPTO ISSUES PROPOSED PATENT FEE SCHEDULE

The Commuter: Residents v. Non-Residents

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017

Paper 25 Tel: Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

USPTO Basics for Small Business. Azam Khan Deputy Chief of Staff

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA-01274

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its

Case: Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/ (Application No. 13/294,044) IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA,

v No Wayne Circuit Court

February 4, The Honorable Arlen Specter Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C.

Lawyer. Intellectual Property Law Section New Mexico Lawyer - May May 2015 Volume 10, No. 2

Paper 23 Tel: Entered: July 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE; NAMED DRIVER EXCLUSION:

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2004

VOL CONTENTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 2013 CA STRIBLING INVESTMENTS, LLC. Appellant VS. MIKE ROZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

America Invents Act: Effective Dates

IS REINSURANCE THE "BUSINESS OF INSURANCE?" (1) By Robert M. Hall (2)

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

USPTO REVISES PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT RULES

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

President s Message. By Donna Meuth, Eisai Inc.

CASE NO. 1D Melissa Montle and Seth E. Miller of Innocence Project of Florida, Inc., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Comments to the Patent Public Advisory Committee Public Hearing on the Proposed Patent Fee Schedule [Docket No. PTO-P ]

In the Supreme Court of the United States

no.21 NEWSLETTER The USPTO is flipping the switch on certain provisions of the America Invents Act on September 16, Are you ready?

ERISA. Representative Experience

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Metro Atlanta Business Court 2016 Annual Report

Paper Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2017

Case 2:15-cv RSM Document 56 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Hemphill v. Department of Revenue, Thurston County Superior Court Cause No Washington Estate Tax

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:

Representing the Innocent Spouse in Pre- and Post-Filing Tax Controversies

Transcription:

What to Do When Facing a Patent Infringement Law Suit Presented by: Robert W. Morris LEGAL PRIMER: 2016 UPDATE AUGUST 5, 2016

So you have been sued Options: Litigate United States Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings Settle Inter Partes Review (IPR) Covered Business Method Review (CBM) Post Grant Review (PGR)

Patent Infringement Federal Court

Patent Infringement Statutory Language 35 U.S.C. 271: 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.

Patent Infringement Suit Timeline

Median Litigation Costs 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Less than $1 Million at Risk $1-$10 Million at Risk $10-$25 Million at Risk More than $25 Million at Risk End of Discovery Post-Discovery *2015 Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Page 37

United States Patent and Trademark Proceedings

USPTO Proceedings Grounds Timing Standard IPR CBM PGR 102 and 103 only patents and printed publications Bar Date One year after complaint Pre-AIA patents - Anytime Post-AIA patents: 9 months after issue and after termination of PGR challenges Receivable likelihood success 101, 112, 102, and 103 all prior art Pre-AIA patents: Anytime if sued or threatened by PO. Post-AIA patents: 9 months after issue and after all PGR challenges are terminated More likely than not that a claim is invalid 101, 112, 102, and 103 all prior art Available only for Post AIA patents: Must be filed within 9 months of grant More likely than not that a claim is invalid

Inter Partes Review Timeline

Median Inter Partes Review Costs 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Through Filing Petition Through End of Motion Practice Through PTAB Hearing *2015 Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Page 38

6,000,000 Comparison Litigation vs. Inter Partes Review Costs 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Less than $1 Million at Risk $1-$10 Million at Risk $10-$25 Million at Risk More than $25 Million at Risk Inter Partes Review Total Cost *2015 Report of the Economic Survey, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Pages 37-38

The IPR Petition The Petition defines the trial Typically, you cannot add arguments to the case Some minor, very narrow exceptions (i.e., Patent Owner may open the door) USPTO Fees: Review Request Fee $9,000 Up to 20 Claims Review Post Institution Fee $14,000 Up to 15 Claims Both fees due at the time the petition is filed Review Post Institution Fee is refunded if the petition is not granted

Tips and Strategies Prior Art Search Using a search firm can be a relatively inexpensive way to narrow down the prior art searching and analysis Standard Must show reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least of the claims challenged in the petition Address all claim limitations not just the limitations that are at issue in trial Half of the resources for an IPR should be used on the Petition

Motion To Stay Motion to Stay Litigation After filing petition for IPR Elements considered: Stage of the litigation Whether a stay will prejudice the non moving party Whether a stay will simply the issues in question Whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and court Helpful to challenge every claim used in the District Court litigation Can Continue Stay of IPR is granted

The Decision Decision to Institute The Patent Trial and Appeal Board will assign 3 judges to review the Petition and optional Patent Owner Preliminary Response Board will decide which grounds are instituted Board will decide on claim construction Decision to Not Institute Motion for Rehearing Can make a motion for rehearing within 30 days of entry of Final Written Determination Standard Abuse of Discretion standard decision based on an erroneous conclusion of law, clearly erroneous factual finding, or a clear error of judgment

Final Written Determination 1 Year After Decision to Institute Estoppel Effects In District Court, the petitioner cannot assert any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. AIA 18(a)(1)(D). Motion for Rehearing Can make a motion for rehearing within 30 days of entry of Final Written Determination Standard Abuse of Discretion standard decision based on an erroneous conclusion of law, clearly erroneous factual finding, or a clear error of judgment Can Appeal IPR to the Federal Circuit

Recent Supreme Court Decision Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, 15 446 (2016) Claim construction standard for Patent Trial and Appeal Board stays Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Broadest Reasonable Interpretation is a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office. For one thing, construing a patent claim according to its broadest reasonable construction helps to protect the public. A reasonable, yet unlawfully broad claim might discourage the use of the invention by a member of the public."

Questions? Robert W. Morris (914) 286.6440 rwmorris@eckertseamans.com LEGAL PRIMER: 2016 UPDATE AUGUST 5, 2016