Patent Law Practice Center

Fee-Shifting Provisions Front and Center in Innovation Act

In April 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of awarding attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to successful litigants in a patent infringement proceeding. The decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., was the primary decision simply because that case was treated first by the Court and formed the basis of the Court’s decision in Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. Essentially, the Supreme Court in these two cases ruled that an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a district court’s § 285 determination. Those familiar with the abuse-of-discretion standard know that it is a difficult standard of review, which should mean that district courts will have far more latitude to handle attorney’s fee awards without meddling from the Federal Circuit.

After these decisions by the Supreme Court, patent reform died in the Senate after lopsided passage in the House. Politically, and procedurally, the problem for patent reform in 2014 wound up being that the Supreme Court mooted one of the leading drivers of this round of reform — fee-shifting. But that hasn’t stopped patent reform advocates from once again pushing the Innovation Act in 2015, which is identical to the Innovation Act from 2014 that died in the Senate.

(more…)

Talking Patent Litigation with Ray Niro

Ray Niro is one of the most well-known patent litigators in the country, and the attorney who was famously dubbed “a patent troll” some 14 years ago, marking the first time the term was used. See The Man They Call the Patent Troll. The label “patent troll” doesn’t really fit Niro, if you ask me, because he hs been extraordinarily successful at proving that large corporations have infringed valid patents, sometimes on fundamentally important innovations. In fact, Niro has been a champion for independent inventors and small businesses who have created some of the most revolutionary inventions. WiFi is an example.

Over the past few years, I have gotten to know Ray…he has written several op-ed articles for IPWatchdog.com…and about once a year we catch up in an ‘on the record’ interview. I spoke with Niro at length on June 25, 2014. The complete transcript of my interview with him is available at A Conversation with Patent Defense Litigator Ray Niro.

What prompted this interview was seeing an announcement that he and his firm are now offering flat fee defense representation in patent litigation matters. Ray Niro defending a patent infringement case? I have to admit I didn’t realize he did defense work, so I wanted to talk to him about this new business model. We discuss this at length during the first segment of our conversation.

(more…)

Patent Reform in Limbo with Supreme Court Ruling on Patent Fee Shifting

The United States Supreme Court recently issued two much-anticipated decisions on fee shifting in patent litigation. While any cases issued by the Supreme Court are important and relevant, these two decisions have the potential to significantly impact pending patent legislation in Congress. Fee shifting has been articulated as one of the chief driving forces for more patent legislation so quickly after the massive America Invents Act (AIA) changes.

The decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., was the primary decision because the Court explained that the ruling formed the basis of their decision in Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. In other words, the Supreme Court decided Octane Fitness and then applied that decision, together with the new law, to resolve Highmark.

In a nutshell, with Octane Fitness, the Supreme Court changed the law as previously announced by the Federal Circuit to make it easier for district courts to sanction plaintiffs for bringing meritless patent infringement suits, while Highmark makes it more difficult for the Federal Circuit to reverse district court decisions under the statute. Both cases were closely watched by both the private sector and Congress, which has been pursuing efforts to quash the perceived problem of patent cases filed by non-practicing entities.

(more…)

Patent Reform Passes in House of Representatives

The Innovation Act (HR 3309) was introduced on October 23, 2013; was marked-up on November 20, 2013; and by a vote of 325-91, passed in the United States House of Representatives on Thursday, December 5, 2013. This fast-tracking of the Innovation Act was despite bipartisan concerns raised by Judiciary Committee Members who urged Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA), who is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to slow the bill down for additional consideration and hearings.

Despite efforts of many in the House, the Innovation Act as passed includes fee-shifting provisions, which provide that the loser of a patent infringement litigation would have to pay the attorneys’ fees of the winner unless the loser’s positions were objectively reasonable. One of the most watched amendments to the Innovation Act had been the amendment submitted by Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC), which would have stripped the fee-shifting provisions from the Act. The Watt amendment lost by a vote of 213-199. Those who opposed deviating from the American Rule and adopting the British Rule (i.e., loser pays) are hopeful that the closeness of the vote on the Watt amendment will cause the Senate to take a closer, more thoughtful look.

Another provision of the Innovation Act that received much discussion, in the limited window available at least, was the change to the estoppel provisions that apply to post-grant review and inter partes review. The America Invents Act (AIA) included estoppel provisions that would prevent those challenging patents, as well as those in privy with them, from raising serial challenges by saying that they could not challenge the same patent claims again based on any prior art that was raised or could have been raised. The Innovation Act removes the “or could have been raised,” which all but certainly suggests that serial patent challenges will become possible, if not likely.

(more…)

Top 10 Issues for Patent Litigators in 2011

Written by Brandon Baum (Partner at Mayer Brown and Practice Center Contributor).

The end of the year is the time for top 10 lists.  Here, in no particular order, are my top 10 issues for patent litigators in 2011.

10.  Microsoft Corp v. i4i Ltd. Partnership., and the clear and convincing evidence standard where the defendant relies on uncited art.  Will the Supreme Court decide that a lesser burden of proof is required to show invalidity when art was never considered by the USPTO?  If so, this will profoundly change both litigation and prosecution practice.  My favorite possible implication – what presumption applies to a mongrel 103(a) combination of cited and uncited art?  And will the PTO experience a data dump of prior art, if Microsoft prevails?

9.  Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A., and the standard for proving the mental state required for induced infringement.  Whatever language the Supreme Court uses to describe the mental state required to show inducement will send everyone scrambling to prove or disprove the existence of that mental state. (more…)