美国专利转让╱诉讼╱管理的战略.ppt

NewAgeStrategiesforLicensing Litigation PatentPortfolioDynamics美国专利转让 诉讼 管理的最新战略何瑞文美国美瑞律师事务所资深顾问台湾事务负责人MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP1333HStreet N W Suite820Washington D C 20005Tel 1 202 216 4101Fax 1 202 408 5146E mail rho Web 2 OVERVIEW InitialpatenteeconsiderationsContactingtheallegedinfringerBusinessriskassessmentBusinessdefensesContractualdefensesRule11issuesClaimconstructionMarkmanProceedingInfringementInvalidity InequitableconductLicensingtacticsPatentprosecutionstrategyIntellectualproperty IP assetmanagement 3 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS Standingtosue Apatenteeshallhaveremedybycivilactionforinfringementofhispatent 35USC 281 Whoeverhaslegaltitletothepatentmaysue Arachnid Inc v MeritIndus Inc 939F 2d1574 1579 Fed Cir 1991 ExclusivelicenseesmayhavestandingTest ifthe substantialrights havebeenassignedrighttomake useandselltheinventionintheUS righttotransferthelicense andrighttosueforpast presentandfutureinfringement AbbottLabsv DiamedixCorp 47F 3d1128 1372 Fed Cir 1995 Otherwise youshouldjointhepatentholder elseriskmotiontodismissforfailuretojoinanindispensableparty 4 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS IdentifyingandselectingthedefendantDirectInfringementAnyonewhowithoutauthority makes uses offersforsaleorsellsapatentedinventionintheUSorimportsintotheUSapatentedinvention 35USC 271 a Anyonewhosellsaproductmadebyapatentedprocess eveniftheprocesswaspracticedoutsidetheUS 35USC 271 g Hypothetical 1 ChipSoftwaremaker 2 Chipmaker 3 Cellphonemaker 4 Networkoperator carrier 5 CellphoneuserExample1 claimcoversonlythesoftwareDirectinfringementonlyby 1 Example2 claimcoversthecellphoneDirectinfringementby 1 2 and 3 5 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS IdentifyingandselectingthedefendantContributoryInfringement IndirectInfringement 35USC 271 c Involvesasale offertosell importationofacomponentofapatentedmachine manufacture orcomposition oramaterialorapparatusforuseinpracticingapatentedprocess Thecomponentsoldmustconstituteamaterialpartofthepatentedinvention Thecomponentsoldmustbeespeciallyadaptedforuseintheinfringingproductorprocess Infringerhasknowledgeofthepatentandtheinfringement notjustofthenatureoftheuse andThecomponentsoldmustnotbeastaplearticleorsuitableforsubstantialnon infringinguses Note 1 theremustbedirectinfringement 2 atleastsomecontributoryactivitiesmustoccurwithintheUS Hypothetical 1 ChipSoftwaremaker 2 Chipmaker 3 Cellphonemaker 4 Networkoperator carrier 5 CellphoneuserExample2revisited claimcoversthecellphoneRemember Directinfringementby 1 2 3 not 4 Mayhavecontributoryinfringementby 4 6 IdentifyingandselectingthedefendantInducementofInfringement IndirectInfringement 35USC 271 b Onewhoactivelyinducesanothertoinfringemaybeliableforinfringementeventhoughnotinfringinghimself Requiresknowledge intentbytheinducerthatadirectinfringementwillresultoranintenttocauseaninfringinguseresults andTheknowledge intentelementcanbeshownbytheactsofaparty suchasadvertising brochures websites whitepapers dialogue inducingotherstodirectlyinfringe Note 1 theremustbedirectinfringement 2 theinducingactivitiesmayoccuranywhere withinoroutsidetheUSHypothetical 1 ChipSoftwaremaker 2 Chipmaker 3 Cellphonemaker 4 Networkoperator carrier 5 CellphoneuserExample2revisited claimcoversthecellphoneRemember Directinfringementby 1 2 3 not 4 Mayhaveinducementofinfringementby 4 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS 7 IdentifyingandselectingthedefendantVenueVenueisappropriateinanyUSfederaldistrictcourtwheretheinfringerissubjecttopersonaljurisdictionPersonalJurisdictionGeneralpersonaljurisdictionPatenteejustshowsallegedinfringer scontactsare continuousandsystematic Example millionsof sinsaleswithinthestate orsubstantialdistributorshipnetworkwithinthestateSpecificpersonaljurisdictionPatenteeshows 1 infringerpurposelydirecteditsactivitiesattheresidentsofthestatewherethedistrictcourtsits minimumcontacts 2 claim arisesoutoforrelatestothoseactivities minimumcontacts Allegedinfringershows 1 whethertheassertionofpersonaljurisdictionisfair reasonableAkroCorp v Luker 45F 3d1541 1546 Fed Cir 1995 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS 8 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS 9 IdentifyingandselectingthedefendantPersonalJurisdiction continuedSpecificpersonaljurisdiction continuedNon USmanufacturers becarefulThequalityofthecontactsisasimportantasthequantityofcontacts andittakesverylittlecontacttoestablishspecificpersonaljurisdictionExamples Placingfansinstreamofcommercewasenough defendants actinginconsort placedtheaccusedfaninthestreamofcommerce theyknewthelikelydestinationoftheproducts andtheirconductandconnectionswiththeforumstateweresuchthattheyshouldreasonablyhaveanticipatedbeingbroughtintocourtthere BeverlyHillsFanCo v RoyalSovereignCorp 21F 3d1558 Fed Cir 1994 ContactslimitedtolicensingamanufacturerinthestateandsendinginfringementwarninglettersAkroCorp v Luker 45F 3d1541 1542 43 Fed Cir 1995 ContactslimitedtoamarketingagreementfordistributionwithinthestateViamCorp v IowaExport ImportTradingCo 84F 3d424 429 30 Fed Cir 1996 INITIALPATENTEECONSIDERATIONS 10 CeaseanddesistlettersTheideaistoputtheinfringeronnoticeofinfringement tostartthedamagesclock see2 belowDamagesWhenthepatentee anditslicensees marksthepatentedproductordoesnotsellaproductcoveredbythepatentinsuitIfthepatentissuesbeforeinfringementbeginsBegincalculatingdamagesasofthedatethattheinfringementbegan IfthepatentissuesaftertheinfringementbeginsBegincalculatingdamagesasofthedatethatthepatentwasissued 35U S C 287 a AmstedIndustries Inc v BuckeyeSteelCastingsCo 24F 3d178 Fed Cir 1994 Wherethepatenteesellsaproductcoveredbythepatentinsuitbuthasnotmarkedtheproducts 35U S C 287 a Begincalculatingdamageswhenthepatenteefirstgavenoticetotheinfringerofitsclaimofpatentinfringement CONTACTINGTHEALLEGEDINFRINGER 11 Ceaseanddesistletters revisitedRemember theideaistoputtheinfringeronnoticeofinfringement tostartdamagesclockThisoccurswherethepatenteesellsaproductcoveredbythepatentinsuitbuthasnotmarkedtheproductsHowever iftheceaseanddesistletter snoticeallegesinfringement Youmayprovidetheaccusedinfringertheopportunitytofileforadeclaratoryjudgmentactiontoestablishnon infringementorpatentinvalidityApartyseekingdeclaratoryreliefmustestablishthatthereis acaseofactualcontroversy 28USC 2201Foracourttoentertaindeclaratoryjudgment a substantialcontroversy betweenthepartieshavingadverselegalinterests ofsufficientimmediacyandrealitytowarranttheissuanceofadeclaratoryjudgment mustexist MarylandCasualtyCov PacificCoal OilCo 312U S 270 273 1941 CONTACTINGTHEALLEGEDINFRINGER 12 CeaseanddesistlettersversusOffertoLicenseExample1 Aceaseanddesistletter Wehavenoticedfromyouradvertisingliteraturethat ATL productsModels mayinfringeoneormoreclaims oftheenclosedpatent SRIwouldbepleasedtoprovide ATL withanonexclusivelicense Result Providessufficientnoticetotheinfringer sodamagesclockstartsticking andCreatesasubstantialcontroversy sodeclaratoryjudgmentispermittedbyinfringer SRIInt lInc v AdvancedTech Labs Inc 127F 3d1462 1469 70 Fed Cir 1997 Example2 AnoffertolicenseletterLetterspecified2claimsSaidtoinfringerit maywishtohave its patentcounselexaminethe patent todeterminewhetheranon exclusivelicenseunderthepatentisneeded Result Providessufficientnoticetotheinfringer sodamagesclockstartstickingDoesnotcreateasubstantialcontroversy sodeclaratoryjudgmentisnotpermittedbyinfringerGartv Logitech 254F 3d1334 Fed Cir 2001 CONTACTINGTHEALLEGEDINFRINGER 13 BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 2Remediesuponfindingofinfringement InjunctiveReliefDamagesInjunctiveReliefAfterinfringementisdeterminedattrial thepatenteeisentitledtopermanentinjunctionagainstfutureinfringement CarborundumCo v MoltenMetalEquip Innovations Inc 72F 3d872 881 Fed Cir 1995 14 Damages revisitedLostProfitsReasonableRoyaltiesSupplementaryDamageTheories BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 15 LostProfits idealdamagesProofofcausation patenteewouldhavemadeadditionalsales butfor theinfringementEvidenceoflostprofitcomputations Panduittest 1 DemandfortheproductIfthereweresignificantsalesofpatentee sproductoraccuser sproduct 2 Noacceptablenon infringingsubstitutesLookatimportantadvantagestoconsumers duetopatent 3 Patenteehadmarketing manufacturingcapacitytomaketheinfringingsalesbyinfringer 4 Amountofprofitpatenteewouldhavemadeifinfringerhadnotinfringed Lostnetsales additionalcosttomakethesales donotsubtractfixedcostsPanduitCorp v StahlinBros FibreWorks Inc 575F 2d1152 6thCir 1978 BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 16 ReasonableRoyalties minimumdamagesIfactualdamages lostprofits cannotbeproved patenteeisentitledtoaminimumofreasonableroyalties 1 EstablishedroyaltyRoyalty paidbysuchanumberofpersonsastoindicateageneralacquiescenceinitsreasonablenessbythosewhohaveoccasiontousetheinvention Rudev Wescott 180U S 152 165 1889 ShouldhavemultiplelicensesbetweenwillinglicensorsandlicenseesNotofferstolicenseafterinfringement consideredtobeunderduress stressoflitigation andnottruemeasures BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 17 ReasonableRoyalties minimumdamages continued 2 HypotheticalnegotiationLegalFictionTheamountof thatalicensorandlicenseewouldhaveagreedupon whentheinfringementbegan ifbothpartieswerereasonableandvoluntarilyagreed GeorgiaPacificCorp v UnitedStatesPlywoodCorp 318F Supp 1116 1120 S D N Y 1970 Georgia Pacificfactors 1 Theroyaltiesreceivedbythepatenteeforthelicensingofthepatentinsuit provingortendingtoproveanestablishedroyalty 2 Theratespaidbythelicenseefortheuseofotherpatentscomparabletothepatentinsuit 3 Thenatureandscopeofthelicense asexclusiveornon exclusive orasrestrictedornon restrictedintermsofterritoryorwithrespecttowhomthemanufacturedproductmaybesold 4 Thelicensor sestablishedpolicyandmarketingprogramtomaintainhispatentmonopolybynotlicensingotherstousetheinventionorbygrantinglicensesunderspecialconditionsdesignedtopreservethatmonopoly 5 Thecommercialrelationshipbetweenthelicensorandthelicensee suchas whethertheyarecompetitorsinthesameterritoryinthesamelineofbusiness orwhethertheyareinventorandpromoter BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 18 ReasonableRoyalties minimumdamages continued 2 Hypotheticalnegotiation continuedGeorgia Pacificfactors continued6 Theeffectofsellingthepatentedspecialtyinpromotingsalesofotherproductsofthelicensee theexistingvalueoftheinventiontothelicensorasageneratorofsalesofhisnon patenteditems andtheextentofsuchderivativeorconvoyedsales 7 Thedurationofthepatentandthetermofthelicense 8 Theestablishedprofitabilityoftheproductmadeunderthepatent itscommercialsuccess anditscurrentpopularity 9 Theutilityandadvantageofthepatentpropertyovertheoldmodesordevices ifany thathadbeenusedforworkingoutsimilarresults 10 Thenatureofthepatentedinvention thecharacterofthecommercialembodimentofitasownedandproducedbythelicensor andthebenefitstothosewhohaveusedtheinvention BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 19 BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT ReasonableRoyalties minimumdamages continued 2 Hypotheticalnegotiation continuedGeorgia Pacificfactors continued11 Theextenttowhichtheinfringerhasmadeuseoftheinvention andanyevidenceprobativeofthevalueofthatuse 12 Theportionoftheprofitorsellingpricethatmaybecustomaryintheparticularbusinesstoallowfortheuseoftheinventionoranalogousinventions 13 Theportionortherealizableprofitthatshouldbecreditedtotheinventionasdistinguishedfromnon patentedelements themanufacturingprocess businessrisks orsignificantfeaturesorimprovementsaddedbytheinfringer 14 Theopiniontestimonyofqualifiedexperts 15 Theamountthatalicensor suchasthepatentee andalicensee suchastheinfringer wouldhaveagreedupon atthetimetheinfringementbegan ifbothhadbeenreasonablyandvoluntarilytryingtoreachanagreement thatis theamountwhichaprudentlicensee whodesired asabusinessproposition toobtainalicensetomanufactureandsellaparticulararticleembodyingthepatentedinvention wouldhavebeenwillingtopayasaroyaltyandyetbeabletomakeareasonableprofitandwhichamountwouldhavebeenacceptablebyaprudentpatenteewhowaswillingtograntalicense 20 ReasonableRoyalties minimumdamages continued 3 OtherMeasures25 Rule25 ofinfringer spre taxablegrossprofit5 Rule5 ofinfringer stotalsalesIndustryNormsFocusontheratesthatothersarechargingforpatentslicensedwithinthesameindustry BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT 21 BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT SupplementaryDamageTheoriesEconomicvalueofapatentmaybegreaterthanthevalueofthesalesofthepatentedpartalone Underthisrule courtshaveallowedrecoveryoflostprofits reasonableroyaltybasedNotonlyontheprofitfromthepatentedpart Butalsoonnon patentedpartsConcept EntireMarketValueRule 1 PriceerosionRecognizeslostprofitdamagesduetopricereductionsorotherdiscountsthepatenteehadtomakeinordermeetcompetitioncreatedbytheinfringerorthemereexistenceoftheinfringerinthemarketDamagesareusuallydeterminedbycomparingthesalespriceofthepatentedproductpriortoinfringementtothesalepriceofthesameproductduringinfringementAwardeduponashowingthatpatenteewouldhaveraisedprices but for infringer spresenceinthemarket 22 BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT SupplementaryDamageTheories 2 ConvoyedsalesProductssoldasaconsequenceofsalesofthepatentedproductreferredtoas collateral or convoyed salesWhenunpatenteditemsnormallysoldwithorasaresultofthesaleofpatenteditemsRecoveryofdamagesmaybeawardedifthepatentrelatedfeatureoftheitem whichalsocontainsunpatentedfeatures isthebasisforcustomerdemandDamagesarerecoverableunderthistheoryonlyifthepatentedandunpatentedcomponentstogetherarepartsofoneassembly notwheretheunpatentedcomponentshaveessentiallynofunctionalrelationshiptothepatentedinvention 3 AcceleratedmarketentryMeasureandcompensatethepatenteeforfuturelossofprofitscausedbythepatentinfringementTheorythatinfringementcausesthepatenteetoexperiencereducedsalesandprofitsinthefutureasaresultoftheheadstartthattheinfringerwillenjoyafterthepatentmonopolyexpires 23 BUSINESSRISKASSESSMENT WillfulInfringementCanreceiveupto3times treble damagesWhereapotentialinfringerhasactualnoticeofanother spatentrights hehasanaffirmativedutyofduecarenottoinfringeThusifitisfoundbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethataccusedinfringedthepatentee spatent eitherliterallyorunderthedoctrineofequivalents itmustfurtherbedeterminedifthisinfringementwaswillfulWillfulnessmustbeprovenbyclearandconvincingevidenceshowingthat Accusedinfringerhadactualknowledgeofthepatent andAccusedhadnoreasonablebasisforbelievingThataccusedproduct processdidnotinfringethepatent orThatthepatentwasinvalid Inmakingthedeterminationastowillfulness considerthetotalityofthecircumstancesFactors Whetheraccusedintentionallycopiedtheproductcoveredbythepatent Whethertheaccusedexercisedduecaretoavoidinfringingthepatent Whethertheaccusedreliedoncompetentlegaladvice andTheaccused sbehaviorasapartytothelitigation 24 BusinessRetaliation Vendor VendeeRelationshipsHypotheticalExample notreal CellphonemanufacturerSamsungElectronicssuescellphonemanufacturerMotorolaServiceproviderSprint sellsoriginalequipmentmanufactured OEM d Sprintphones madebybothfromSamsungElectronicsandMotorolaThesephonesarebrandedby Sprint butareSamsungElectronicsorMotorolaphonesinsideInotherwords bothSamsungElectronicsandMotorolaarecustomersofSprintSprintmakesanangryphonecalltoSamsungElectronics Whatareyoudoing Yourlawsuitwillhurtourbusiness You dbetterdropitquickly orloseusasacustomer Ifaccusedofinfringement youshouldexploitkeybusinessrelationshipstoputpressureonpatentees liketheoneaboveRememberthatthemostvaluablepatentsaremostlikelyheldbythemajorplayersinanindustryVeryoften ifthesemajorplayerspursuelitigationagainstotherplayers theyriskalienationbymajorcustomers BUSINESSDEFENSES 25 TechnologyStandardsManytechnologyindustrieshavestandardsbodiestodeterminepreferred standardizedguidelinesfortheirindustryCommonscenario Akeyplayerinastandardsbodyconvincestheotherplayerstoadoptitsproposedguidelines specifications Thiskeyplayerdoesthis knowingthatitsguidelines specificationshavealreadybeenorwillbepatented Uponacceptanceoftherelevantstandard theotherplayersproducelargevolumesofproductsusingtheguidelines specifications andAtthatpointintime thekeyplayerwillpursuetheotherplayersforpastandfuturepatentinfringement Itisagoodideaforindustryplayerstobeawareoftheforegoingscenarioandguardagainstit 1 Prohibitpatentingofstandardguidelines specificationsbytheparticipants 2 Provideeachparticipantaroyalty freelicensetotheinventionsarisingfromthestandardguidelines specifications or 3 Reviewantitrustcausesofaction BUSINESSDEFENSES 26 PatentRetaliationTheaccusedinfringerwilldirectitsownpatentsagainstthepatenteeRecenttrend Patenteesoftenhave paperstrength meaningagoodpatentposition butlittleornobusinessintherelevanttechnologyareaPatentretaliationisnotpossible makingthisscenarioquitedangerousAccusedinfringercannotpursuepatenteewithitsownpatents becausepatenteehaslittleornobusiness meaningtherecanbelittleorno damagesTheonlypositiveaspect itisunlikelythepatenteewillhavemuchinterestinimposinginjunctiveremedyAninjunctiononlyhelpsacompanyagainstitscompetitors notthosewhohavelittleornobusinessPatenteewillwant damagesinsteadAccusedinfringershouldnotpermitthiscasetocomebeforeajury BUSINESSDEFENSES 27 CONTRACTUALDEFENSES IndemnificationExemplaryindemnificationlanguage Company 1shalldefend indemnifyandholdharmlessCompany 2 itsstockholders affiliates successors assigns officers directors employees agentsandrepresentatives fromandagainstanyandallactions suits proceedings investigations demands claims judgments liabilities obligations liens lossesanddamagesandanyrelatedfeesandexpenses including withoutlimitation attorneys fees arisingoutoforrelatingtoanyclaimmadebyathirdpartythattheCompanyProductinfringesormisappropriatesanythirdpartyintellectualpropertyrights includingwithoutlimitationanyrightstopatents copyrights trademarks servicemarksortradesecrets Therefore ifCompany 2makes uses sellsproductsinfringingathirdparty spatents Company 1islegallyresponsibleHypothetical revisited 1 ChipSoftwaremaker 2 Chipmaker 3 Cellphonemaker 4 Networkoperator carrier 5 Cellphoneuser 4 shouldrequireindemnificationfrom 3 3 shouldrequireindemnificationfrom 2 and 2 shouldrequireindemnificationfrom 1 Hence indemnificationgoesupthechain fromthepartieswhoselltheproducts totheoneswhomanufacturethecomponentsThelegaltheoryisthatthemanufacturerisinabetterpositiontodetermineinfringementofitsownproducts Alsorememberthat