Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

Patent damages law is one of the most complex areas in patent law and it is constantly evolving. Attorneys and courts often confuse the principles and get the law wrong. Further, even without the backdrop of constantly evolving and complex damages law, proving damages at trial is one of the hardest aspects of patent litigation. And properly apportioning damages can be one of the most difficult aspects of damages law to get right. The Federal Circuit’s two recent decisions in Exmark Man. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., No. 2016-2197, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2018) and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 2016-2520, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018) shed light on calculating damages for multi-component products. Together, these cases show that the royalty rate must be apportioned based on the incremental value the novel elements add to conventional elements of a claim, while the royalty base must be apportioned based on the incremental value the patented features add to the accused product.

On February 2, 2018, in Sophos Inc. v. RPost Holding, Inc., Judge Denise Casper became the latest judge to declare a case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award the declaratory judgment plaintiff, Sophos, the opportunity to recover its attorneys’ fees.  The court’s decision in Sophos comes as the four year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness rapidly approaches.  After Octane Fitness, many predicted a large uptick in the number of fee-shifting motions filed and their success rate in patent cases.  This article explores the fallout from Octane Fitness after four years on the books and any trends that have emerged in the courts.

To keep pace with competitors, businesses must constantly monitor, adjust, and streamline their patent portfolios. Doing so ensures that portfolios deliver the maximum potential return on investment by staying aligned with corporate goals, industry and technology developments, and growth areas across industries and businesses. This process requires managers to adjust the makeup their portfolios to maintain effective coverage in specific areas and eliminate or reduce low-value patents to minimize maintenance… There are four goals that can be achieved through portfolio audits: streamlining portfolios; ensuring portfolios are well-positioned, positioning portfolios for optimal monetization, and ensuring the portfolio provides sufficient coverage without excess. Portfolio audits may help identify strengths and gaps.

To request cancellation of one or more claims of a patent in an inter partes review (IPR), a petitioner must challenge the claim on the basis that the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C §102 or 103, in view of prior art patents or printed publications. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Two ways a patent owner can disqualify references relied upon by the petitioner for unpatentability are by (i) asserting that the petitioner did not set forth sufficient evidence showing that the reference qualifies as a printed publication, or (ii) antedating the reference to show that the date of invention is prior to the critical date of the reference.

35 U.S.C. § 271(g) was enacted in 1988 as part of the Process Patents Amendments Act to address instances where would-be infringers were avoiding infringement liability by using a process, patented in the U.S., outside of the country and then importing the product of the patented process into the U.S. Eli Lilly and Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d 1568, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Under Section 271(g), such activity constitutes infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). The statute, however, carves out two exceptions: (1) where the product of the patented process that was made outside the U.S. is “materially changed” prior to importation; and (2) where the product of the patented process becomes a “trivial and nonessential component” of the product being imported. This article examines Federal Circuit case law addressing the circumstances that will (and will not) give rise to application of the “material change” carve out to infringement liability under Section 271(g).

Recently, however, the USPTO and the Federal Circuit have both clarified that a patent agent’s communications related to his or her authorized practice are protected in the same manner as attorney client communications, such as those by patent attorneys… Further, state courts are not bound by USPTO rules or Federal Circuit law. Accordingly, to the extent a patent agent’s communications regarding his or her authorized practice are at issue in a state court proceeding that can’t be removed to a federal jurisdiction, the communications may not have the same protection as that provided in a federal court or AIA proceeding. Although the circumstances under which communications between a patent agent and a client would be discoverable in litigation in state court are limited, the potential admissibility in various states leaves a gap in the potential privilege.

It is no wonder that Bitcoin has recently reached a record of $600 billion in the total market value, and Thomas J. Lee, the head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, predicts the total value of Bitcoin to reach $1.2 trillion by the end of 2018… Every digital investor has a special set of goals in cryptocurrency, but whatever your goals online safety measures must be taken. Be sure to consider the fees, accessibility, and liquidity as well as your own safety when choosing a platform for your exchange.

When I give talks on emotional intelligence, I usually get the following question: “I have an employee who is brilliant, but I just can’t promote her.” When I ask why, I get a response that goes something like this: “She offends either management or her colleagues by blurting out the answer or stating the answer in a way that others in the room feel put down. The universal concern is that the employee or associate is not aware of this behavior and how it affects others. She often has been promoted in the past because of her intelligence. Yet, that intelligence alone is not enough to go higher up the corporate ladder or make partner.

Although the amount of the settlement was far less than $2.7 billion in amount sought by Waymo, the settlement apparently did include a payment from Uber of 0.34% of Uber equity—or about $244.8 million in stock based on a $72 billion valuation of Uber… Both sides had a lot riding on the outcome of the trial. In addition to the billions in damages, Waymo was seeking an injunction to prevent Uber from using any technology that may have originated from Waymo, which would have been a huge set back for Uber’s program. Indeed, during his first day of being questioned, the former CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, agreed that developing autonomous vehicles amounts to an “existential question” for Uber, and that the market for driverless cars is likely to be “winner-take-all.”

The lawsuit is the latest example of content creators chasing down a third party that does not directly infringe content but rather facilitates infringement through a combination of its own hardware and third-party software… Currently, the increasingly proposed solution for safeguarding digital information is blockchain technology. Blockchain is being implemented in various industries to solve inefficiencies in areas from identity protection to supply chain management… To understand blockchain technology as a potential solution to the problems posed in the digital rights management space, one must first understand what the technology is and how it operates.

While Exmark invites a more flexible approach to apportionment, allowing, at least in some cases, a focus on the royalty rate to value the patented invention, the rate analysis itself must be properly supported. Indeed, Exmark serves as a cautionary reminder that any expert opinions on reasonable royalty damages must be closely tied to the facts of the case. Damages opinions that are purely speculative and unsupported by the facts of the case are likely to be found inadmissible. As a result, apportionment approaches will continue to be case-specific, variously focusing on the royalty base, the royalty rate, or a hybrid-model involving both elements.

The overlap between sovereign immunity and IP issues is not something that comes up all of the time. However, when it does, the impact of the immunity can be significant. The law for certain matters, such as lawsuits in Federal court, is fairly well resolved. However, its application when new procedures are made available, such as for IPRs which were established in 2012, has provided new challenges and opportunities… So can the Federal or State government be sued for infringement under Federal patent, trademark, or copyright law? The answer often depends on the particular facts and specific legal issues of a dispute. That said, in most cases the answer is Yes for the U.S. Government and No for states and Tribal Nations, unless they have taken a specific action to waive immunity for that matter. A brief summary follows.

In 2017, there were several noteworthy decisions relating to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit addressed two separate cases, one dealing with safe harbor provisions, the other on anti-circumvention. This article discusses three separate decisions including Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal Inc., 873 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017)(on DMCA safe harbor), and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017)(anti-circumvention provisions).

Instead of following the same IP plan year after year, IP managers should focus their strategy on aligning their IP with their business, including developing a more concise IP plan, and switch to using smarter and modern analytics… IP managers must: (1) Start with the end in mind: IP is the business; (2) Build a plan, measure and manage and continuous improvement; and (3) Create an environment where your IP and business execs have access to timely actionable intelligence to support their decisions and strategies.

We started working with California Lawyers for the Arts (CLA), a nonprofit serving as statewide administrator for the California Inventors Assistance Program (CIAP). The firm assisted Bill Carpenter. Carpenter applied to CIAP for assistance with a patent application already filed, which had received a final rejection… The CIAP presents a valuable opportunity for patent practitioners to make a big difference in an inventor’s life. It allows patent practitioners to utilize the skill sets in their practice area and provides a feeling of reward upon obtaining a positive outcome for low income and under resourced individuals. We highly encourage practitioners to consider volunteering through their regional patent pro bono programs.