A patent owner who finds that another party is making, using or selling its patented invention may bring suit for patent infringement. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement claims. Hence the litigation must be brought in a federal district court having jurisdiction over the parties. A party accused of infringement by letter or otherwise may bring a suit against a patent owner for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity or noninfringement. Either party in a patent infringement action may demand a jury, or the case can be tried to the judge if both parties waive their jury rights.
As a general rule, patent litigation presents unusually complex issues and a case will typically take at least 18 months or more to get to trial. During the initial discovery phase, each side will make demands on the other for responses to written questions and for the production of documents relevant to the issues in the case, followed by depositions of key witnesses, including the inventor, design and engineering personnel, and financial and accounting personnel. Next, in the expert witness phase, expert witness reports are exchanged, followed by depositions of the experts. Thereafter, either side may file a motion for summary judgment with supporting briefs and documentation, seeking a ruling from the court without the need for a full-scale trial. Following resolution of such motions, the case is ready for trial.
At some point in this process, it is necessary for the court to conduct a Markman hearing to determine proper construction of the claims. Even in a jury case, it is the job of the judge to determine the meaning of the claims as a matter of law. The terms in a claim are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning unless it appears the terms were used differently by the inventor. Claim language is construed by reference to the claims, the specification of the patent, the prosecution history of the patent and the prior art. Expert witness testimony is also often considered. The timing of the Markman hearing is currently a subject of considerable controversy. Some judges have even permitted the case to be tried to the jury before resolving disputes about claim construction. In other cases the Markman hearing has been held at a preliminary stage well before trial. In many cases, the judge’s decision on the meaning of the claims may be determinative of the question of infringement. (More)
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Monday, August 12, 2013
America Invents Act Delivers: Quick Administrative Decision On Patent Challenge Brings Hope to Accused Infringers
By Kerry Timbers. Co-Chair of our Litigation Practice Group
One of these new procedures, the Covered Business Method (CMB) review procedure, provides a relatively quick way to attack method patents in the financial and banking areas. This month, the first party to pursue the challenge was rewarded with a ruling from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating the patent asserted against it in a pending district court lawsuit.
SAP America has been in a multi-year infringement battle with patent owner Versata Development Group over a software-based patent for determining pricing based on which customer, from which geographic region, is buying which product. Versata claimed great success with its software until the much larger SAP introduced a competing product which, according to Versata, destroyed Versata’s customer base.
Versata sued for patent infringement and in late 2011 won a jury verdict of over $330 million. While this case was being appealed, CBM reviews became available under the AIA on September 16, 2012, and SAP took advantage of it on the very day the law took effect.
CBM reviews are available only to parties being sued or threatened on a patent involving a financial product or service. Unlike prior post-issuance reviews of patents, CBMs allow attacks on a patent not only on the basis of prior art, but also on the basis of lack of written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness, as well as whether the patent’s subject matter is even eligible for patenting. (More)
One of these new procedures, the Covered Business Method (CMB) review procedure, provides a relatively quick way to attack method patents in the financial and banking areas. This month, the first party to pursue the challenge was rewarded with a ruling from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating the patent asserted against it in a pending district court lawsuit.
SAP America has been in a multi-year infringement battle with patent owner Versata Development Group over a software-based patent for determining pricing based on which customer, from which geographic region, is buying which product. Versata claimed great success with its software until the much larger SAP introduced a competing product which, according to Versata, destroyed Versata’s customer base.
Versata sued for patent infringement and in late 2011 won a jury verdict of over $330 million. While this case was being appealed, CBM reviews became available under the AIA on September 16, 2012, and SAP took advantage of it on the very day the law took effect.
CBM reviews are available only to parties being sued or threatened on a patent involving a financial product or service. Unlike prior post-issuance reviews of patents, CBMs allow attacks on a patent not only on the basis of prior art, but also on the basis of lack of written description, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness, as well as whether the patent’s subject matter is even eligible for patenting. (More)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)