An examination of squeeze arguments in patent litigation

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

© 2007 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising The Global Law Firm for Israeli Companies Dramatic Changes in U.S. Patent Litigation.

Advertisements

Patent Law Overview. Outline Effect of patent protection Effect of patent protection Substantive requirements for patent protection Substantive requirements.

1 of 11 Perils of Patent Reform: Flexibility’s Achilles Heel F. Scott Kieff Professor Washington University School of Law Research Fellow Stanford University’s.

Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.

Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

IPR Litigation System & Recent Case in Korea Hee-Young JEONG Judge of Daejeon District Court, KOREA April 22, 2015.

1 Remedies for True Owner of Right to Obtain Patent against Usurped Patent AIPLA MWI IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Sunday, January 22, 2012.

The Case in Favour of Prosecution History Estoppel EPLAW Annual Meeting & Congress, Brussels, 2 December 2011 Jean-Christophe Troussel Bird & Bird Brussels.

Online Handwriting Recognition, Pen Computing, and Shorthand Alphabets (with discussion of the Xerox v Palm patent infringement case on the Graffiti alphabet)

Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.

©2002 Marger Johnson & McCollom PC, All Rights Reserved. Intellectual Property Presentation for 2002 High Technology Protection Summit Presented by Alexander.

Patent Law Overview. Patent Policy Encourage Innovation Disclose Inventions Limited Time Only a Right to Exclude.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200.

Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.

Our Divided Patent System John R. Allison University of Texas McCombs School of Business Mark A. Lemley Stanford Law School David L. Schwartz Northwestern.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

PATENT OPPOSITION AND STRATEGY Essenese Obhan, Obhan & Associates.

Heli PihlajamaaLondon, Director Patent Law (5.2.1) Clarity - Article 84 EPC.

Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Yoshiki KITANO JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA Annual Meeting, 2014 IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Post-Grant Opposition.

© 2004 VOSSIUS & PARTNER Opposition in the Procedural System by Dr. Johann Pitz AIPPI Hungary, June 2 – 4, 2004 Kecskemét.

$200 $300 $400 $500 $300 $400 $500 $300 $400 $500 $300 $400 $500 $300 $400 $500 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $100.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Intellectual property research institute of australia IP Enforcement in Australia What’s Actually Happening in the Courts? Presentation by: Kim Weatherall.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200.

The New Tool for Patent Defendants - Inter Partes Review Daniel W. McDonald George C. Lewis, P.E. Merchant & Gould, P.C. April 16, 2014 © 2014 Merchant.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer.

10/13/08JEN ROBINSON - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER Claim Construction Order An order issued by the court in which the court construes the meaning of disputed.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Update on IP High Court -Trend of Determination on Inventive Step in IP High Court in comparison with the JPO- JPAA International Activities Center Toshifumi.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Trends Relating to Patent Infringement Litigation in JAPAN

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Chief Judge Intellectual Property High Court Ryuichi Shitara.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Fordham IP Conference When is an invention ripe for patenting? Particular issues with therapeutic use claims. Dr Penny Gilbert Powell Gilbert LLP.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $100 $200 $300.

Contingent Fee Patent Litigation  What is contingent fee patent litigation?  Why consider taking a patent case on contingency?  How do you evaluate.

Some Things We Know About Software Patents From Empirical Research John Allison—UT Austin Software patent = claims cover data processing (manipulation.

1/30 PRESENTED BY BRAHMABHATT BANSARI K. M. PHARM PART DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS AND PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLGY L. M. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY.

The Applicability of Patent-Agent Privilege After In re Queen’s University at Kingston Presented by Rachel Perry © 2016 Workman Nydegger.

Chapter 3 The U.S. Legal System Chapter 3: The U.S. Legal System

Omer/LES International/

Set-Up Fill in your questions and answers.

CBM/PGR Differences Differences in time periods of availability, parties who have standing, grounds of challenge available, standards of review, and.

Main Game Set-Up Fill in your questions and answers.

WHERE WE ARE & WHAT WE’RE DOING

Rounding Numbers.

(Outmoded) “Point of Novelty” Test

Chapter 4: Patents and Trade Secrets in the Information Age.

ประกาศกระทรวงอุตสาหกรรม ฉบับที่ 5292 (พ.ศ. 2562)

Calculation of Damages in Korean Patent Litigation

Presentation transcript:

An examination of squeeze arguments in patent litigation Rebecca Halford-Harrison Email: Rebecca.Halford-Harrison@klgates.com Tel: 020 7360 8294

What is a squeeze and who wants one? The best a man can get Defendants escaping infringement creating traps narrowing the negotiable ground Not just for patent cases Not always available

Patents Court/PCC (1997-2006)* Infringed Not infringed Valid 26 26% 19 19% Not valid 25 25% 29 29% * Another approx 40 cases did not consider both issues (~30%). Figures very approximate. Percentages rounded.

Court of Appeal (1997-2006)* Infringed Not infringed Valid 13 39% 8 24% Not valid 9 27% 3 9% * Another approx 24 cases did not consider both issues (~40%). Figures very approximate. Percentages rounded.

What are the chances? Very approximate Costs mean weaker patents skew figures QI: 2006: of approximately 34 cases listed for trial, only 17 reached trial But we like statistics… Pinch of salt

Where are the squeezes Validity v Infringement Obviousness v Insufficiency Obviousness v Added Matter Prior User v Obviousness of Improvement Embodiment v Scope

How does a squeeze work? Pincer movement Some examples: Flexible razors v Fixed razors Double CD boxes Collapsible play tents

How to avoid the traps for patentees Reduce the overlap Keep it broad Turn inside out

Questions?

An examination of squeeze arguments in patent litigation Rebecca Halford-Harrison Email: Rebecca.Halford-Harrison@klgates.com Tel: 020 7360 8294