U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics)

Similar documents
Controlling costs in patent litigation Received (in revised form): 12 th April 2010

Legal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation

Patent Litigation, Patent Trolls, and Recent Developments in Patent Law

Managing litigation. Litigation data can reveal patterns in patent cases, which can assist with strategy and tactics.

ITC Section 337 Investigations: Patent Infringement Claims

Present Situation of IP Disputes in Japan

Are Patent Trolls Now Targeting the Energy Industry?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Patent Litigation. for High Technology and Life Sciences Companies

The Verizon - Vonage Decision

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION

RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

Large Law Firm structure

8:08-cv LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case 2:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

Your Patent Has Been Infringed: Now What? Timothy Ellam Steven Tanner

Intellectual Property Group Patent Litigation 101 Strategies For Every In House Lawyer

Patent Litigation in Germany An Introduction (I)

John H. McDowell, Jr.

Case 2:07-cv LED Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 5

The trademark lawyer as brand manager

Patent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures

In recent years, energy industry users have increasingly voiced the complaint

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL ******************************************************************************

Section 2 Day Forward Major Jury Program

Patent Litigation. Quick Guide to Proceedings in Germany HEUKING KÜHN LÜER WOJTEK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

Trends in Global Patent Litigation

Case4:12-cv KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION

Litigation Strategies for Intellectual Property Cases

International Patent Litigation and Jurisdiction. Study of Hypothetical Question 1 Under the Hague Draft Convention and Japanese Laws

Best Practices in Litigation Management: Money Saving Technologies & Techniques. N. Thane Bauz Patrick McBride Paige Hunt Wojcik December 8, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION. v. Case No. [MODEL] ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY IN PATENT CASES

Any civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS

Missouri Small Claims Court Handbook. The Missouri Bar Young Lawyers' Section

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Chapter 307. (Senate Bill 585) Commercial Law Patent Infringement Assertions Made in Bad Faith

Case 1:14-cv JEI-KMW Document 43 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 254

Small Claims Court Information provided by Oregon State Bar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Patent Litigation in Europe - Presence and Future

1 According to Patent Freedom, the percentage of suits involving NPEs has grown on average 36% per year since

JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ PHONE (928) FAX (928)

If you have been sued as a defendant in a civil case...keep reading.

Case5:15-cv NC Document1 Filed06/10/15 Page1 of 8

Case 4:08-cv MHS-ALM Document 58 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 9

Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review

Efficient alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for intellectual property disputes

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

JUNIPER EXH Juniper v Brixham IPR

About the Author Federal Jurisdiction Reform

DOCSVAULT WhitePaper. Concise Guide to E-discovery. Contents

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

Draft Report of the Dispute Settlement Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Policy Committee, Industrial Structure Council

COURT SCHEDULING ISSUES

Case3:12-cv CRB Document265 Filed07/20/15 Page2 of 12

Multiple Defendant Patent Infringement Cases: Complexities, Complications and Advantages +

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

IP-Litigation in Germany. German and European Patent, Trademark and Design Attorneys Lawyers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.

to Defend Against Patent Trolls Without Breaking the Bank

Creditor Lawsuits Handbook

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. IC Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection

DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK CREDIT CARD DISCLOSURES. This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate.

Inspections and Access to Evidence in

What Is Small Claims Court? What Types Of Cases Can Be Filed In Small Claims Court? Should I Sue? Do I Have the Defendant s Address?

SMALL CLAIMS COURT INFORMATION

Stanley M. Gibson Technology and IP Trial Lawyer Representing inventors, manufacturers and owners

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

Case 6:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

CIVIL TRIAL RULES. of the COURTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS. Table of Contents GENERAL MATTERS. Rule 1.10 Time Standards for the Disposition of Cases...

Telephone: Fax: EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

FOR USE IN THE MARION COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS COURTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements. By: Thomas J. Smith The Law Offices of Thomas J. Smith San Antonio, Texas

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT GRECO V. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. San Diego Superior Court Case No CU-BT-CTL

Subject Matter Conflicts The Next Wave in IP Malpractice Claims? How to spot the potential conflict and deal with it proactively.

Your Legal Rights and Options in this Settlement

COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF ECOSMART, LLC AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST CARLOS ANTONIO CABRERA

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

Settlement Traps for the Unwary

patent enforcement, inaccessible. In other words, in some cases, nobody wins. However, there are alternatives to these costly practices.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JORDAN A. SIGALE Partner and Co-Chair, Patent Litigation Department

CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CREDENTIALS. Services Summary Brooks Consulting s intellectual property offerings fall into three main categories:

Case 6:15-cv Document 1 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

Software Patent Litigation: What have we learned? Deb Nicholson Open Invention Network Linuxcon Europe, Düsseldorf October 14, 2014

United States District Court

Navigating Small Claims Court in Cook County, Illinois. By: Robert L. Margolis. Robinson Curley & Clayton, P.C.

The Foundation of the International Association of Defense Counsel SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION PROCEDURES: A REFERENCE GUIDE

Case 2:09-cv AJM-KWR Document 19 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Dive Early, Dive Deep: The Importance of Pre-suit Investigation

Business Court 2012 Annual Report

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Department of Energy No. AL Acquisition Regulation January 6, 2014 ACQUISITION LETTER

Transcription:

U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics) Thomas K. Scherer

Federal and State Court, ITC actions Considerations of speed and remedies involved Eastern District of Texas Considerations of speed and factors involved Patent Trolls/NPEs Who they are and what they do Strategies for dealing with one Hurricane Plans Way to be prepared for litigation Litigation Statistics U.S. Litigation Average costs for intellectual property litigation

Federal and State Court Parallel State and Federal Court systems 50 States, 94 Federal Districts in 11 Circuits Patent cases always heard in Federal Court Trademark, copyright, and trade secret may be heard in State or Federal Court depending on circumstances District Judges have discretion to set litigation timelines

Federal and State Court Remedies - both Federal and State Courts can grant: Injunctions Preliminary Permanent No longer granted automatically (ebay case) Monetary Damages Reasonable royalties Lost profits Enhanced Damages (willful infringement) Attorney s fees Prevailing party in exceptional cases

Federal and State Court Whether in Federal or State Court, the presiding judge probably will not: Have detailed knowledge of IP law Have a technical background Plaintiff has a right to trial by jury Jury almost never has technical or legal knowledge Jury makes ultimate decision of validity/infringement

Federal and State Court Experts have critical role of explaining issues IP litigation is often a battle of the experts Often, the winner has an expert with: requisite background, knowledge, education, and experience; and an ability to relate favorably to the judge and jury Testifying Expert Someone who will testify at trial All documents and data viewed or created by expert are subject to discovery Attorney must limit the testifying expert s access to information Consulting Expert Someone who merely aids with technical aspects of the case Consulting experts do not testify Work product of consulting experts are not subject to discovery

ITC Actions International Trade Commission (ITC) Known as Section 337 Investigations Jurisdiction over imported products only Injunction/Exclusion order are the only remedies Fast-track action (15-18 months) Plaintiff must show domestic industry and use of technology Timelines are set by rule, are short, and are non-extendable Answers in ITC investigations are due quickly after Notice of Investigation issued (20-30 days) typically more complex than answers in U.S. District Court as detailed exhibits such as defensive claim charts are generally included Discovery requests may be served shortly after the investigation is initiated may result in response to requests for production and interrogatories being due even before the original answer is due

Eastern District of Texas EDTX - the Patent Litigation Capital of America Geographically: Extends from just north of Dallas, up to the Oklahoma border, east to the Louisiana border, and south to counties north of Houston Court is held in: Tyler, Beaumont, Sherman, Marshall, Lufkin, and Texarkana Most patent lawsuits are filed in Tyler and Marshall Why are so many cases filed in EDTX? Rocket Docket Extremely sophisticated with respect to patent cases Very aggressive time deadlines for pre-trial and trial Time from start to finish was initially less than one year Plaintiff-friendly juries Consider patent infringers to be cattle thieves

Eastern District of Texas Why are so many cases filed in EDTX? Strict enforcement of deadlines and discovery rules Established a set of complex rules detailing timelines for infringement contentions, validity contentions, and claim construction Must be familiar with the local rules of court regarding patent matters Judges have little patience for those not following the rules exactly Historical unwillingness to transfer venue Motion to transfer 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) Difficult to obtain transfer when the suit is filed in the plaintiff s home forum (most Patent Trolls/NPEs establish headquarters in EDTX) Plaintiff usually can assure that the suit remains where filed Judges do not typically grant these requests, unless defendants can show no connection with the EDTX (i.e., no products ever sold there)

Eastern District of Texas Why are so many cases filed in EDTX? Allow for wide open discovery Mandatory production requirement All relevant information must be promptly produced No exceptions Coupled with new E-discovery rules, discovery is the most expensive part of patent litigation E-Discovery New electronic discovery rules of documents in civil cases Companies involved in civil litigation must meet within the first 30 days of a case s filing to discuss how to handle electronic data The discussion must encompass retention practices, the types of records required and their electronic format, as well as what is considered accessible Having an internal electronic file retention policy helps immensely

Patent Trolls / NPEs Patent Troll was originally used to identify entities: Said to go on fishing expeditions, i.e., trolling the waters, in order to find ways to generate revenue from patents NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) is now the preferred terminology for referring to: Individual inventors who do not produce or commercialize the patented invention but sue corporations for infringement Companies who purchase patents as tools for licensing and enforcement and not for commercial production Patentees who patent technologies for the sole purpose of collecting license fees The number of NPE patent lawsuits has increased From 600 cases in 2010 to 1,143 cases in 2011 May even be more cases due to the difficulty of identifying NPE cases

Negative Effects Unreasonable licensing fees Threat of injunction outweighs value of patent Lack of proper apportionment of damages Litigation expenses Plaintiff s attorneys on contingent fee Inconvenient forum (EDTX) Hinder technological and industrial growth Negative public perception of patents Positive Effects Patent Trolls / NPEs Create a secondary market for patents Opportunity for small inventors to obtain return on investment in their inventions

Litigation Strategies When confronted with Patent Troll/NPE litigation Expect aggressive behavior Act quickly in response Typically, plaintiffs are already prepared Review the party s litigation history and weigh the risks Consider negotiating a running royalty and then making Medimmune attack post-license Look into quality of patents being asserted, and attempt to invalidate patents through reexamination or DJ action Warning - Reexamination may invoke de facto estoppel: Any claim held valid under reexamination will be significantly more difficult to invalidate in subsequent litigation or proceedings Ideally, reexamination should be requested based on prior art that the examiner failed to adequately consider

Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation Being prepared for litigation before it happens Whether plaintiff or defendant, taking steps to be ready helps Allows the litigation process to proceed more efficiently Saves time and money Makes entire litigation team s job easier Establish procedure for identification of involved individuals Must be customized for particular company / division Important to have information readily available to legal department Employee / contractor roles, responsibilities, and contact information Assemble the appropriate litigation team quickly Company legal department members Trial counsel and local counsel Opinion counsel (different from trial counsel!) Litigation support personnel (experts, vendors, etc.)

Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation Interview key individuals and collect evidence Sanctions can be imposed for poor evidence collection/preservation Plan for electronic and documentary evidence Balance reasonability of data inclusion with data targeting Clearly define scope and monitor implementation of hold Consider sources of electronic and documentary evidence Paper files Electronic files on desktops, laptops, and mobile devices Electronic files on company servers, third-party servers (e.g., cloud) Designate custodians for collected evidence Evidence must be properly stored, maintained, and updated Evidence must be reviewed for privilege Evidence must be prepared for production

Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation Be aware that notice letters can start litigation No longer are required to actually threaten suit Declaratory judgment action can be supported by: Identification of patent and product Apprehension of suit Care should be taken when drafting and sending such letters Careful review should be made upon receipt of such letters Plan reaction to lawsuit or threat letter Initial analysis Identification of problem patents Early engagement of invalidity searches on problem patents Obtaining opinions on searched, problem patents Determining defenses and infringement positions

Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation If you are sued, immediately begin working with counsel do not delay Is this a non-infringement case or an invalidity case? Have opinions of counsel been drafted? How much are the damages involved? If a suit is only threatened consider filing suit first In the United States, a plaintiff has 120 days from the date of filing to serve a Complaint upon the defendant(s). To reserve a preferred venue/forum, a plaintiff can file suit and not serve, spending up to the next 120 days putting their case together, acquiring additional evidence, and (sometimes) attempting to settle the dispute.

Litigation Statistics Sources for intellectual property litigation costs American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) conducts survey of U.S. lawyers in law firms and corporations every two years and publishes results Statistics from the 2011 Report of the Economic Survey Litigation Costs Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secret Misappropriation Costs until end of discovery and total cost through trial Trademark Opposition Costs Two-Party Interference Proceeding Costs Inter Partes Patent Reexamination Costs U.S. Courts websites provide caseload statistics LLM is a Texas-based litigation support company Provides customized e-discovery and case management software Maintains real-time statistics on litigation timing and costs

Litigation Statistics Active District Court intellectual property litigation 25,334 patent law suits in U.S. 4,037 in Texas Districts 3,026 in Eastern District of Texas 28,372 trademark law suits in U.S. 27,359 copyright law suits in U.S. Average time to trial in District Courts - 36 months 4,980,441 average pages of documents produced during discovery in patent law suits 426 appeals of patent law suits heard by the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in 2011 14% reversal rate of District Court decisions Average time from docketing to disposition - 9-10 months

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics Patent Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $350,000 Total cost through trial $650,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $1,500,000 Total cost through trial $2,500,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $3,000,000 Total cost through trial $5,000,000

Litigation Statistics Trademark Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $200,000 Total cost through trial $350,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $425,000 Total cost through trial $775,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $1,000,000 Total cost through trial $1,500,000

Litigation Statistics Copyright Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $200,000 Total cost through trial $350,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $400,000 Total cost through trial $700,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $750,000 Total cost through trial $1,375,000

Litigation Statistics Trade Secret Misappropriation Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $250,000 Total cost through trial $425,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $700,000 Total cost through trial $1,000,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $1,360,000 Total cost through trial $2,500,000

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics

Litigation Statistics Trademark Opposition 2011 Cost until end of discovery $50,000 Total Cost $90,000 Two-Party Interference Proceeding 2011 Cost until end of discovery $175,000 Total Cost $338,000 Inter Partes Reexamination 2011 Through filing request $35,000 Inclusive of first patent owner response $50,000 Inclusive of all patent owner responses $75,000 Inclusive of an appeal to the board $100,000 Inclusive of an appeal to Federal Court $200,000

THANK YOU Thomas K. Scherer scherer@oshaliang.com