Patent Law Practice Center

Rocky Mountain IP Conference: Joint Infringement Update

R. David Donoghue, author of Chicago IP Litigation blog and Practice Center Contributor, recently attended the 9th Annual Rocky Mountain IP & Technology Institute.  David will be writing several articles on the highlights from the Institute.  The first two articles  focused on the Judges panel wherein they discussed best practices in intellectual property litigation.  In this article, David discusses Scott Alter‘s (of Faegre & Benson) presentation on joint and divided infringement.

One of the excellent sessions at the conference was Scott Alter’s presentation about the state and history of joint and divided infringement.  Here are some of the highlights:

• BMC v. Paymentech (2007): This case involved method claims directed to separate parties — caller, debit processor & bank. The parties agreed that no single party performed each step. The Federal Circuit said Section 271 required one party to perform every step, unless one defendant played a “mastermind” role. BMC had argued that plaintiff just needed to show participation and combined actions. Court noted that patentee could have drafted the claims to apply to a single entity. Read the rest of this entry »

PATENT REFORM–THE REMIX

Upcoming Audio Briefings On Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The Supreme Court  has decided three cases this past month that could have a big effect on patent law.  To help you understand the significance of these decisions and their implications, PLI is offering three timely and topical One-Hour Audio Briefings.

1. June 24th – Global-Tech v. SEB: Supreme Court Holds knowledge Requirement Satisfied by Willful Blindness for Patent Infringement:  On May 31, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. In an 8–1 decision, with Justice Alito writing for the Court, the Court concluded that induced infringement requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement, not just knowledge that it was encouraging certain acts which just happened to infringe a patent. Examining the statutory language and tracing pre–adoption case law, the Court further concluded that a defendant’s deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists would not be sufficient to demonstrate knowledge, which was the Federal Circuit’s view below, but that “willful blindness,” well–established in the criminal law context, is enough to satisfy the knowledge element. Although it announced a different standard, the Court concluded that the evidence in this case easily satisfied that standard. For such a doctrine to apply, a defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists, and must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact. In dissent, Justice Kennedy argued that the Court took a step too far in concluding that willful blindness is a form of knowledge, and would have required actual knowledge.  This briefing will be conducted by Peter J. Brann, a partner in the law firm of Brann & Isaacson, whose practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, R. Ted Cruz of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and counsel of record for SEB, and William Dunnegan of Dunnegan LLC and counsel of record for Global-Tech Appliances. Read the rest of this entry »

Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution Highlights: Claim Drafting & Preparation of Patent Application

Another great presentation I sat in on today at Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011 was an Introduction to Patent Drafting. The speaker was Willian Frommer of Frommer Lawrence & Haug .  Here are the highlights from the discussion:

 Frommer suggested that whenever possible, the attorney should interview the inventor to obtain a detailed understanding of the invention and that an attorney’s role is to learn of a specific embodiment of the invention, but also to predict possible alternative embodiments and implementations that may be brought to market. He offered two practice tips: 1) Courts will sometimes limit a claim to a preferred embodiment or even invalidate claims that are broader than the disclosed embodiments.  The more embodiments, the better.  Try to anticipate competing products that may affect your client’s market and 2) The inventor is often the best source for alternative embodiments. Read the rest of this entry »

Fundamentals Of Patent Prosecution 2011 Highlights: Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing

I’m sitting in this morning on Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing and the first speaker of the day is John O’Brien, Co-Chair of the program and Practice Center Contributor, who provided tips on how to take an effective invention disclosure.  Here are some highlights from the presentation:

O’Brien discussed Engagement Letters and how the letter may minimize allegations made by a client that the lawyer improperly mishandled the matter in question.  He provided a suggested Engagement Letter Checklist that included: 

• Introduction with general description of matter
• parties included in representation
• any additional parties in matter who are not represented
• specific areas in which representation will be included
• specific areas which representation will not include
• establish the expectations
• detailed payment for services and timing for payment
• grounds for attorney termination
• primary responsible lawyer Read the rest of this entry »