Patent Litigation Quiz

PDF page 71: First you decide whom to sue. Many options may exist. If the infringer is a corporation, you can sue it. But you can also sue its owners and/or officers if it is a closely held company or is dominated by a single shareholder or manager. If the infringer has subsidiaries, you must choose which of them to include as defendants. Recall that your patent gives you the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing your invention in the territory the patent covers. (We will assume for simplicity that you own a U.S. patent; foreign patents can be obtained in other countries and enforcement of those foreign patents is subject to their local laws.) Any person or entity that violates one of these exclusive rights is a potential defendant.

PDF page 71: Strategic issues should be considered in deciding whom to sue. For example, the location of one or more defendants may make it hard to include them in a lawsuit filed in a place (“forum”) convenient to you. Although the infringer’s customers are also infringers (i.e., they “use” the infringing product or service), most patentees disfavor suing customers because these are also the patentee’s customers or potential customers—and suing them may be bad for business. Often, the manufacturer or seller of the infringing product or service indemnifies and defends its customers. In other words, in many cases the manufacturer or seller of a product will agree to “cover” its customers in the event of a patent infringement claim. So, if the infringing manufacturer and/or seller is already a defendant, you gain little by suing customers, except their ire! Thus,

PDF page 71: Strategic issues should be considered in deciding whom to sue. For example, the location of one or more defendants may make it hard to include them in a lawsuit filed in a place (“forum”) convenient to you. Although the infringer’s customers are also infringers (i.e., they “use” the infringing product or service), most patentees disfavor suing customers because these are also the patentee’s customers or potential customers—and suing them may be bad for business. Often, the manufacturer or seller of the infringing product or service indemnifies and defends its customers. In other words, in many cases the manufacturer or seller of a product will agree to “cover” its customers in the event of a patent infringement claim. So, if the infringing manufacturer and/or seller is already a defendant, you gain little by suing customers, except their ire! Thus,

PDF page 72: Another strategic decision, when more than one infringer exists, is whether to sue them one at a time or viii collectively. Common sense might suggest suing them one at a time, to avoid having them gang up on you. But experience shows that suing multiple defendants simultaneously is often a better strategy. It turns out that, in many cases, rather than encouraging them to gang up on you, they spend most of their energy trying to sort out differences among themselves and trying to present a united front. Although the America Invents Act narrowed the joinder rule in patent cases beginning in September, 2011 to cases where a plaintiff can show a “common question of law or fact” as well as a true “transaction or occurrence” between the defendants (which must be more than infringement of the same patent), judges still typically consolidate separate cases involving the same patent for their own convenience in handling discovery and pre-trial issues. Thus, proceeding simultaneously against multiple defendants can still be an effective strategy.

PDF page 72: Another strategic decision, when more than one infringer exists, is whether to sue them one at a time or viii collectively. Common sense might suggest suing them one at a time, to avoid having them gang up on you. But experience shows that suing multiple defendants simultaneously is often a better strategy. It turns out that, in many cases, rather than encouraging them to gang up on you, they spend most of their energy trying to sort out differences among themselves and trying to present a united front. Although the America Invents Act narrowed the joinder rule in patent cases beginning in September, 2011 to cases where a plaintiff can show a “common question of law or fact” as well as a true “transaction or occurrence” between the defendants (which must be more than infringement of the same patent), judges still typically consolidate separate cases involving the same patent for their own convenience in handling discovery and pre-trial issues. Thus, proceeding simultaneously against multiple defendants can still be an effective strategy.

PDF page 72: Which patents (if you have more than one) and which claims of those patents you assert in a lawsuit is another important decision you must make. Twenty years ago, you could simply file a lawsuit against an alleged infringer, listing your patent(s) and little more. You could defer deciding which claims to assert against which allegedly infringing products or services until after you received information from the defendant(s) through discovery in the litigation. However, courts now routinely require that you provide details in the complaint you file, or shortly after, about which patent claims are asserted against which product or service, and also that you provide a “claim chart” that details those assertions precisely. Although it is possible to revise these assertions after receiving more information during the discovery process, your initial assertions remain in the court’s record and can come back to haunt you if they are not consistent with your revised assertions. Therefore, careful pre-filing investigation and analysis is crucial to a successful pursuit of the infringers.

PDF page 72: The selection of where to file is an important, perhaps determinative, decision. As we have noted, patent infringement cases seeking damages can only be filed in U.S. federal courts (as opposed to state courts). If your defendant is a private party, the proper location for the case (called “venue”) is the federal district court in ix the geographic location where the defendant is incorporated or resides, or where the claim arose.

PDF page 72: viii Prior to the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, joinder rules allowed you to sue multiple infringers in the same lawsuit, even if their products were different. The AIA limited this ability by restricting joinder. Nevertheless, you can still file a separate lawsuit against each alleged infringer, and ask the court to consolidate them for discovery and other pretrial purposes. Courts are usually eager to do this because it simplifies their work. The practical effect is almost the same as a single case with multiple defendants. ix If the alleged infringer is the federal government itself, or a government contractor, the proper venue is the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C. §1491 Another forum for enforcing a U.S. patent against imported goods exists at the U.S. International Trade

PDF page 73: Thus, you can, and should, select a venue that meets your objectives as closely as possible. Some venues (e.g., the Eastern District of Virginia and the Western District of Wisconsin) have reputations (and rules) for moving cases through to trial very quickly, often in less than a year. Speed is desirable in terms of reaching a conclusion quickly, but has its downsides in terms of accelerated costs and maximum disruption to the normal business operations of you and your opponent. Other districts exhibit much slower progress toward trial, which may be desirable or undesirable in meeting your particular objectives. Another factor is experience. Some district courts have handled many complex patent cases, have detailed rules about what must be done to get the case ready for trial, and an excellent track record on appeal. Still other districts have reputations for being “plaintiff friendly” or “defendant friendly,” although these reputations are often more “urban legend” than accurate. In any given case, the outcome is dependent on the parties, the facts, the lawyers, and the judge/jury assigned.

PDF page 73: At the outside, any suit filed more than six years after the infringement began and was reasonably capable of being discovered can give rise to a defense of “laches” and/or “estoppel”by your opponent. In other words,the accused infringer is arguing that you waited too long to bring your infringement claim. It may be necessary for you to prove that the defendant was not prejudiced by your delay. If laches applies, which simply means you waited an unreasonable time tomake your claim, prejudicing your opponent, your damages will be limited to those that arise after you filed your lawsuit. If estoppel applies, which means that you not only delayed, but affirmatively misled your opponent into believing you would not file suit, your claim is barred altogether.

PDF page 73: At the outside, any suit filed more than six years after the infringement began and was reasonably capable of being discovered can give rise to a defense of “laches” and/or “estoppel”by your opponent. In other words,the accused infringer is arguing that you waited too long to bring your infringement claim. It may be necessary for you to prove that the defendant was not prejudiced by your delay. If laches applies, which simply means you waited an unreasonable time tomake your claim, prejudicing your opponent, your damages will be limited to those that arise after you filed your lawsuit. If estoppel applies, which means that you not only delayed, but affirmatively misled your opponent into believing you would not file suit, your claim is barred altogether.

PDF page 73: At the outside, any suit filed more than six years after the infringement began and was reasonably capable of being discovered can give rise to a defense of “laches” and/or “estoppel”by your opponent. In other words,the accused infringer is arguing that you waited too long to bring your infringement claim. It may be necessary for you to prove that the defendant was not prejudiced by your delay. If laches applies, which simply means you waited an unreasonable time tomake your claim, prejudicing your opponent, your damages will be limited to those that arise after you filed your lawsuit. If estoppel applies, which means that you not only delayed, but affirmatively misled your opponent into believing you would not file suit, your claim is barred altogether.