Patent Law Practice Center

Patent Law Institute Live Blog: Litigating Against NPE’s

Welcome to day 2 of the Patent Law Institute! The live blog will continue throughout the day, as will the live tweeting (@plipatentlaw, #PatentLawInstitute). The first panel we are reporting from this morning is entitled, “Litigating Against Non-Practising Entities,” and features P. Anthony Sammi, Partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP concentrating his practice on litigating intellectual property cases, particularly high-technology patent cases, at the trial level. Sammi shares proven strategies for defeating NPEs and explains the difference about litigating against an NPE. If you missed out today, you’ll be able to see this panel live in San Francisco on March 19-20th. Here are the highlights: (more…)

Congress Considers Changes to Rule 11 Sanctions

We are pleased to announce the addition of  R. David Donoghue to our list of distinguished Contributors.  He is a Partner in Holland & Knight’s Intellectual Property Group focusing upon intellectual property litigation and particularly upon patent disputes.  Dave just sent along this article he recently posted on his blog, Chicago IP Litigation, discussing the changes to Rule 11 sanctions being considered by Congress.  The article details the proposed amendments and the testimony supporting and opposing the H.R. 966 Bill.

Congress is currently considering revision Rule 11 sanctions, including:

1. Removing the existing 21 day “safe harbor” provision which requires that you send your motion to the opposing party and give them 21 days to remedy the alleged Rule 11 violation before filing the motion with the Court; and
2. Making an award of fees and costs related to a winning Rule 11 motion automatic, instead of discretionary.

The Federal Bar Association (of which I am a member) has published a call for comment that sets out both sides of the issue well.  It follows below.  I can understand the inclination to make fees and costs automatic, but the 21 day “safe harbor” serves a valuable gatekeeping role.  It avoid clogging the federal courts with Rule 11 motions that could be fixed with notice of the alleged deficiency.

Click here to read Donoghue’s full article.