04/12/2013 – PE/NPE Global Strategies - 1 - How to Use Global IP Litiation Strategies to Deal with Non- Producing Entities (NPEs) Heinz Goddar Boehmert.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Patent Infringement Litigation Before the U.S. International Trade Commission By Timothy DeWitt 24IP Law Group USA 12 E. Lake Dr. Annapolis, MD
Advertisements

From Invention to Patent -Patents as Tool for Economic Success- WIPO – INSME International Training Program IP and Management of Innovation in SMEs May.
To draw a picture…. To draw a picture… Coordination of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Work in progress) Sebastian Peyer ESRC Centre.
Copyright Trolling An Empirical Study of “John Doe” Litigation Prof. Matthew Sag, Loyola University Chicago School of Law July 10, 2014.
CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENTS Are They Right for You? — Are They Right for Your Client ? Att. Arlene Rochlin Rome, 11 oct 2013.
26/28/04/2014 – EU/EP Patent Management HG Patent Strategy in Europe in the Advent of a Unified European Patent System – How to Manage Non-Practicing.
The German Experience: Patent litigation and nullification cases
MATCHING PROCEDURES WITH GOALS C. Graham Gerst
The Process of Litigation. What is the first stage in a civil lawsuit ?  Service of Process (the summons)
Law 12 MUNDY Civil Trials – Introduction Civil lawsuit involves disputes between two individuals, groups or corporations/organizations called =
Patent Law A Career Choice For Engineers Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25, 2008 Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25,
Presented to ACC America September 19, 2014 By: Jason M. Schwent Taming the Trolls: Litigation Strategies for Dealing with Patent Assertion Entities.
Alternative Fee Arrangements Dan Gresham Andrew Crain SRTTD – July 2010.
London | Geneva | Zurich | Milan | Padua | New York | Greenwich | New Haven | San Francisco | Hong Kong | Singapore | BVI 9 th CIS Local Counsel Forum.
Recent Changes in the US Patent System Affecting Engineers Peter D. Mlynek, MBA, PhD, Esq May 1.
Comparative Law Spring 2002 Professor Susanna Fischer CLASS 29 GERMAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE III FRENCH CIVIL PROCEDURE March 26, 2002.
SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATING A TAX SETTLEMENT – EVEN IN THIS ECONOMY California Tax Policy Conference San Diego, California November 2, 2012 Jeffrey M. Vesely.
ARE PATENT VALUES DECLINING? GREY GOLD ADVISORS, LLC Wild Dunes 2015.
The International Patent System Amendments to the PCT Regulations as from 1 July 2015.
26/28/04/2014 – Trademark Protection and Strategy HG Using Distinctive Signs to Market Products and Services: The Role of Trademarks in Enhancing.
Lawyers.
Comparative Law Spring 2003 Professor Susanna Fischer FRENCH CIVIL PROCEDURE March 20, 2003.
Advanced Civil Litigation Class 1Slide 1 Large Law Firm structure Senior Partners- ultimate control over the firm Senior Partners- ultimate control over.
Practical Aspects of IP Arbitration: Improving the negotiating position Olav Jaeger September 14, 2009.
Group Action in Germany? Representative Action in Security Litigation and Plans to expand this Model.
Choosing Tactics. Strategic Choice Model  The lawyer should not necessarily stick with one model.  The idea that the negotiator has freedom to switch.
Legal Document Preparation Class 6Slide 1 General Partnerships The general partnership has the following features: –Unlimited liability for all partners.
Civil Law Procedure First principles – why study? Perspective Truths (laboratory) Reform Globalization Role of lawyer.
Chapter 11 Trial Preparation.
Winston & Strawn LLP © 2010 International Association of Defense Counsel Joint Regional Meeting with the British Institute of International and Comparative.
Legal Document Preparation Class 12Slide 1 Functions of the Discovery Process Narrow the issues –After investigation, you can more easily determine which.
26/28/04/2014 – IP for Innovation HG Dynamic Use of Industrial Property for Innovation Growth, Competitiveness and Market Access Heinz Goddar Boehmert.
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.
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. NO SC) 2009 RBAP-MABS National Round table Conference May 12-13, 2009 Hyatt Hotel and Casino Manila.
Depositions and Law & Motion
March 4, 2011 Civil Procedure.
Trends Relating to Patent Infringement Litigation in JAPAN
Private Law Litigants: the parties involved in a civil action Plaintiff: the party initiating a legal action Defendant: the party being sued in a civil.
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Implementation challenges in EECCA region: how to address them? Dr. Svitlana Kravchenko University of Oregon (USA and Ukraine)
Comparative Law Spring 2002 Professor Susanna Fischer CLASS 30 GERMAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE III FRENCH CIVIL PROCEDURE March 27, 2002.
Contingent Fee Patent Litigation  What is contingent fee patent litigation?  Why consider taking a patent case on contingency?  How do you evaluate.
Civil Procedure Ch. 21, sec. 2 Pp Preparing for a Civil Trial Court Filings Court Filings - Complaint describes the problem and suggests solutions.
LAWYERS. Number of Lawyers Between 800,000 – 1 million About 2/3 are in private practice rest work for: - Government - Corporations - Unions - other organizations.
12/16/07/10 – Preparatory Measures before Trade Fairs in DE HG Preparatory/Preventive Measures before Exhibiting at Trade Fairs in Germany Heinz.
Information Security Crisis Management Daryl Goodwin.
Eliseo Lugo III.  Objectives: By the end of class, students will be able to:  Name at least five situations in which a person might wish to consult.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 11 – Bio/Pharma Issues 1.
Divorce: Only Two Options? Presentation by Trail Potter, Potter Law Firm
Judicial System in Germany for IPR Protection presented at the 2009 International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR 10 September 2009, Chengdu,
The Court system and The Constitutional Court system of Korea KH LEE )
16/20/11/09 – EU Civil Patent Enforcement HG Patent Rights in the EU – The Civil Enforcement Perspective Heinz Goddar Boehmert & Boehmert.
Things to Consider When Hiring a Small Business Attorney
Heinz Goddar and Carl-Richard Haarmann Boehmert & Boehmert
ABA Young Lawyers Division IP Webinar
Civil Pre-Trial Procedures
Agenda for 13th Class Admin Name plates Handouts Slides Polinsky
Civil Pre-Trial Procedures
Agenda for 14th Class Admin Name plates Handouts Slides Shavell Review
Christian W. Appelt German and European Patent and Trademark Attorney
Unitary Patent Court: Strategising in advance to maximise IP asset protection London IP Summit – October 2015.
Agenda for 14th Class Admin Name plates Handouts Slides Shavell
Part A-I The Economic Theory of Legal Process
Agenda for 14th Class Admin Name plates Handouts Slides Shavell
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Agenda for 13th Class Admin Name plates Handouts Slides Polinsky
Civil Law: Trial Procedures
Ch
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Group Action in Germany?
Presentation transcript:

04/12/2013 – PE/NPE Global Strategies How to Use Global IP Litiation Strategies to Deal with Non- Producing Entities (NPEs) Heinz Goddar Boehmert & Boehmert

04/12/2013 – PE/NPE Global Strategies Features of U.S. Patent Litigation System attracting Attack Activities (Complaints) of NPEs n Low court fees (if any) n Lawyers prepared/allowed to act on contingency fee basis u i.e. very low cost at least initially for attacking NPE n Invalidation of attacking patents of NPEs expensive and difficult n High overall litigation cost for defending Practicing Entity (PE) u Lawyers usually not prepared to work on success-depending honorarium; high discovery and deposition cost; high cost eventually at trial later; etc. n No compulsory refund of defendant‘s (PE) cost (lawyers etc.) by losing plaintiff (NPE) n Consequence: High cost risk for PE, low cost risk for NPE (even if defence well- based)

04/12/2013 – PE/NPE Global Strategies Features of German Patent Litigation/ Invalidation System attracting Defence Activities by PE attacked in U.S.A. n Invalidation actions possible without specific legal interest u Even strawman actions fully permitted u Invalidation procedure rather quick and cheap (compared with U.S.A.) n No contingency fee based lawyer/patent attorney available for e.g. patent-defending NPE (otherwise unlawful!) n Full refund of court fees and statutory attorney fees, plus necessary expenses, by loser (e.g. NPE) to winner (e.g. PE) n Consequence: High (cost) risk for NPE, low (cost) risk for PE (if invalidation action well- based)

04/12/2013 – PE/NPE Global Strategies Recommendation for Pes attacked by NPEs in U.S.A. n Think globally, i.e. open parallel „war theatre“ by e.g. invalidation action in Germany (DE) n First, identify 5 – 10 value patents (not necessarily related to „attacking“ U.S. patent of NPE) held/controlled by U.S. attacking NPE in force in DE (national DE patents as well as DE parts of EPC patents) n Attack those patents of NPE by invalidation action in Germany u Necessary consequence: NPE must appoint non-contingency lawyer/patent attorney for defending attacked patents in DE within one month after notification of invalidation action u Will cause NPE to spend ,00 – ,00 EUR per attacked patent at an early stage, i.e. easily, in total, ,00 – ,00 EUR n NPE at risk in case of losing invalidation procedures not only to lose patent, but also to bear refundable statutory fees of PE as well as court fees n Consequence: High risk for NPE, low (cost) risk (if invalidation action well based) for PE n Overall result of combined U.S./DE procedures: NPE probably brought to negotiation table on equal level rather early - 4 -