02/02/2012 - PowerPoint Presentation

387 views
Uploaded On 2017-04-03

02/02/2012 - PPT Presentation

RJM IP Sci Ev in Pat Lit Winter 2012 1 IP Scientific Evidence in Patent Litigation Week 4 OPEN SEATING TODAY The first third of the quarter is over We have now begun the middle third ID: 533126

claim 2012 sci rjm 2012 claim rjm sci pat winter lit patent construction judge questions ware case claims infringement

Link:

Copy

Embed:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.docslides.com/embed/533126" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "02/02/2012" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentation Transcript

Slide1

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

IP: Scientific Evidence in Patent LitigationWeek 4

OPEN SEATING TODAY!

The first third of the quarter is over.

We have now begun

the middle third

After tomorrow, we have 4 more weeks of regular classes and then

imulations.

Time to lobby your legislative representatives to make it illegal to run universities on the quarter system? (Just kidding. Sort of.)Slide2

Week 3 –being where you weren’t

Amy

Sam

Patrick

Nicolaj

Waqas

Ram Tim Jamie Amanda

Chris

Corinne

Kevin

Dave

RJM

DOOR

Whiteboard

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Seating Order – Previous Weeks

Amanda

Nicolaj

Amy

Waqas

Tim

Week 1 – Ordinary Patents + comments

Kanu

Kevin Sam Patrick Chris

Dave

Jamie

Corinne

Ram

RJM

Patrick

Nicolaj

Tim

Waqas

Ram

Week 2 – BSC v. Cordis - columnsCorinne Dave Sam Amy

KevinJamieChrisAmanda

RJMSlide3

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Today’s AgendaThe Simulations are At Hand

During the break (5:20), look through the potential patents with your teammates. Acer v. TPL – the claim construction hearing.

what you learned, what you wondered beforehand

Catch-up Questions (selected)

KSR – when

patents

are invalid for obviousness

What word belongs there?

Next week: Infringement – literal and under the Doctrine of Equivalents

Break ~5:20

No matter what we’re doing at 6, we’ll start KSR

Remind me, if I forget.Slide4

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Simulations – Three Teams, Two NightsSimulations will be on:

Wednesday, 3/7/12, 7:30 to 9:30 (one team) Thursday, 3/8/12, 5:30 to 10 (two teams)

Everyone must attend all the simulations.

Everyone must critique

the other two teams generally, and

one person in one of the other teams specifically.

Critiques will be due on Thursday, 3/15 at 11:59 pm*.

Amy’s Questions

were about the simulation (as were several others’). Do them now?Slide5

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Simulations – Three Teams, Two NightsEach team can rank its preferences for the 3 slots. Your position on this slide does not – or does not have to – mean the teams will go in that order.

TEAM

Lawyers

Amanda

Corinne

Nicolaj

Jamie

Kevin

Patrick

Tim

ExpertsDaveSamAmy

Chris[Ram]Waqas

Patent?Slide6

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Simulations – Three TeamsTeams get 15 minutes x # of teammembers.

4-person teams get 60 minutes. I set aside 2 hours, however, because of set-up, introductions, judges’ comments, and networking/refreshments.

COLLABORATION IS THE KEY

Teams will create the

powerpoint

(

aka

‘demonstrative’) collaboratively.

Teams will create the Qs collaboratively

the As collaboratively and

an outline of cross-examination collaboratively.

Teams will choose clients (PO or AI)

no earlier than 3/2.Slide7

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Continuations, Etc.File ApplicationReceive Office Action Restriction Requirement: Elect Claims, File Divisional (maybe petition for review of Restriction?) Rejection: Amend/Argue or Abandon

File Amendment (the aquiescence to the Restric is also an Amendment?)Receive Final Rejection

Course of action Petition to file Amendment after Final Appeal

Abandon

File a CONTINUATION (before the expiration of the time to respond) and then file a Preliminary Amendment to avoid a Final Rejection in the first office action)Slide8

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Field Trip

* means d

oes not need a ride.

Fri

Amanda Y

Amy Y

Chris

Corinne Y* Y

Dave Y*

Jamie Y

Kevin Y* Y*

Nicolaj

Patrick Y YRam Y Y

Sam Y YTim

NY N

Waqas Y

YRoberta Y Y

Van users 9 7

1.What did

Chris and

Tim

miss by missing both days?

Amy

Corinne*

Dave

Kevin*

Patrick

Ram

Sam

Waqas

Your catch-up questions involved the field trip. Let’s get to them next.

2. What did

Amanda

Jamie

and

Nicolaj

miss by missing the second day?

Amanda

Chris

Jamie

Nicolaj

and Tim

Please ask

those who attended both days

some incisive questions

about the experienceSlide9

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRISWhat limits your (yes, I’m talking to YOU, today, sitting in this classroom) ability to answer the question “Which approach is better”?In the hearings last week, did you get the feeling that Judge Ware knew about the accused device? How did he know whatever he knew?

WareMorris

TimDave

Nicolaj

Corinne *

Chris

Amy

Amanda

(alphabetical choice)

Waqas

Ram

Patrick

KevinSamSlide10

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRISJudge Ware said that the claims should be construed as the examiner would have understood them without regard to the accused device because the accused device did not exist at the time the patent issued.But then, neither did the lawsuit. And neither did any dispute about what the claim language meant.$64,000 Question: How does a disputed claim term come to be disputed? Put another way, how do you the lawyers and experts –

decide what to dispute in the claim(s)?Slide11

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRISAnd see Corinne’s Questions.In this, as in many a discussion about patent law, you can improve your analysis by abandoning abstract words (objective, e.g.) and coming up with a concrete example.Corollary: anyone who speaks without giving a concrete example may not have thought the matter through very well.Slide12

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRISKevin writes: Without the benefit of experience I prefer Judge Ware’s approach, because

it allows him to approach a plain meaning [understanding] of the claim terms without the

outside influence of the technology being disputed. I am sympathetic to the Morris position,

because I have had an exceedingly difficult time

interpreting what these claims might actually relate to.

Nonetheless, Judge Ware’s position is the preferred stance

assuming he can interpret the claims

without relying on the accused device as a

crutch

. Slide13

Waqas

writes: Given Judge Ware’s non technical background, his approach can only suggest that the actual device and

real world knowledge doesn’t matter to him in understanding the claims and how technical words are construed. He is only going to rely on the definitions in the specifications/claims as argued by the attorneys. This will be problematic when the

the two sides argue if a words common vs. technical meaning should apply. From [1] it appears that there is inefficiency in the patent cases as as many as 30% of decisions are reversed by the federal circuit; maybe such a stance is one factor to consider.[1] page 11 of http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v15/15HarvJLTech001.pdf

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRIS

Is that how

the 2 sides divide: common v.

technical?

Loaded NOUNS

(well, this one is a compound adjective/noun plus noun) are far more persuasive than loaded adjectives and verbs.

RJM says if the system worked perfectly the

reversal rate would be even closer to 50%. See

tinyurl.com/claim-bop

and amicus brief in

Microsoft v. i4i

pdf

24-25.Slide14

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRISPatrick writes: [I]f I were the judge I would like to know why each side is angling for a specific phrasing or interpretation of the language because otherwise the lawyers might seem to be

contorting themselves for no reason and I might speculate

(and be wrong). ANGLING and CONTORTING and SPECULATE are far more persuasive than MERELY and CLEARLY.Slide15

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

WARE v MORRISSam writes: [I]n the end I can't justify _not_ learning as much as possible about the entire scope of the invention before making a

binding decision.

claimedSlide16

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Other Good Questions about the Field Trip

Kevin

– the reexamination, the lawyers’ styles and techniques.

Jaime

- Slide17

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - TIM Question: The plaintiff's attempted to argue that the defendant should be bound to the arguments they made during reexamination. Since these arguments aren't made by the patentee, it doesn't qualify

for prosecution history estoppel. But may judicial

estoppel apply?

Answer: Judicial

estoppel

is highly fact specific, and there is not

enough in the brief to determine whether it will certainly apply in

this case. However, the Federal Circuit has held that "[the] doctrine

also applies to administrative proceedings in which a party obtains a

favorable order by making an argument that it seeks to repudiate in a

subsequent judicial proceeding."

Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prod.,

Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000), http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8492395908678946273. The court continued with the analysis, treating "statements made . . . to

the PTO in the trademark registration process" as though they were made in "administrative proceedings." So the answer is likely yes - the defendants may be subject to judicial estoppel based on their statements during reexamination.

?Slide18

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Prosecution History ESTOPPELProsecution History Estoppel = File History Estoppel = File Wrapper EstoppelAnd it’s not really an estoppel

, which is a question of EQUITY. Whether PHE applies has been decreed to be a Q of fact, like = literal infringement and = anticipation. Obviousness is a question of law. Slide19

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Prosecution History Estoppel (PHE) v. Interpreting aka Construing the Claims in light of the Prosecution HistoryWhen you interpret a claim in order to determine literal

infringement (or validity), you use the PROSECUTION HISTORY. That is *NOT* the same as PHE.

PHE refers to something specific: It is a limitation on the PO’s right to win on infringement

when the claim does not LITERALLY cover the accused device,

but where the wider scope is within the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). Slide20

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - NICOLAJ What is a "ring oscillator system", cf. page 4 of the JCCB (and of course claim 1 of the '339-patent)?"Oscillation is the repetitive variation, typically in time, of some measure about a central value (often a point of equilibrium) or between two or more different states. Familiar examples include a swinging pendulum and AC power. The term vibration is sometimes used more narrowly to mean a mechanical oscillation but sometimes is used to be synonymous with "oscillation". Oscillations occur not only in physical systems but also in biological systems and in human society", cf. Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillation.

I am not quite sure I still understand it, but the visualization of the moving spring-mass system helps me a bit to, at least, get a gist of what is going on. What I am not sure about is whether the

repition

has to be perpetual, as I assume that the spring material at some point looses momentum (due to gravity) and the

repititive

variation will be smaller.

This is where I would like to sit down with the patent agent/the scientific expert and have him explain it to me in complete "baby language" and being able to ask all the stupid questions.

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzq734N3asU

.Slide21

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - DAVE I wonder what the doctrine of claim differentiation actually dictates. The defendants mention in a footnote, "The doctrine of claim differentiation dictates that different claims with different language have different meaning, and should not be inferred to have the same construction because

of some misguided notion of 'parallel terms'." I'd like to unpack this statement a little bit.

Claim differentiation simply dictates that different claims should be interpreted to cover different things. In a few minutes of searching, I

can't find anything to support the second part of the sentence, in

particularly how it relates to parallel terms. I'm guessing that the

defendants don't have any case work to support this sentence (since it's

not cited) and instead are relying on Big Kid syndrome.

I'm also guessing that the defendants are trying to pull a fast one by

obfuscating "claims" and "elements". The doctrine of claim differentiation

dictates that claims should be construed differently rather than elements.

The elements in Row 23, 19, 28 largely DO contain parallel language.

There's no reason why truly parallel elements shouldn't be treated as such

even if separate claims are given the benefit of the doubtSlide22

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - CHRIS2. I wonder about the history of patents on integrated circuits in general.The first integrated circuit (IC) ( in its original meaning! The devices described in this weeks patents are apparently monolithic integrated circuits ) was patented in 1959 by Jack Kilby (who received the Nobel in 2000) of Texas Instruments (Pat.3,138,743). There was quite a bit of legal trouble involved in the 60's centering around whether

Kilby or Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductors invented the IC first. This involved law suits and ultimately cross-licensing of each others patents.Slide23

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - AMANDAI started off doing basic research on CPUs and processorsbecause, as I said earlier, I know nothing. I didn't have a discretequestion, however (I didn't know enough to know what I needed toknow), so it was more informative for myself rather than this

assignment. So, the next question I addressed was inspired by yourlast question: Who is Judge Ware? I learned that he's been nominated

by Presidents from both parties (George H.W. Bush and Clinton), andwas embroiled in a scandal that resulted in the

withdrawl

of his

second nomination.

[

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Aug_26.JUDGE.html

]

He is known for handling internet cases, specifically with respect to

businesses, and also for his participation in the Prop 8 battle.

[http://www.sdgln.com/news/2011/06/13/breaking-news-analysis-judge-james-ware-proves-combative-proposition-8-hearing

]Slide24

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - CORINNE Is one court’s claim construction binding against the patentowner in future suits? It depends. The law of issue preclusion

variesbetween circuits, generally requiring an identity of issues that werefully/fairly litigated, actually decided, and necessary to the final

judgment. District courts split on what situations satisfy the fourthfactor: is a claim construction hearing itself “final” enough, or is a

ruling on infringement necessary?

TM Patents v. IBM

, the court found that a claim construction

from a suit that settled before trial was preclusive against the

patent owner in the second suit; after all, a ruling on infringement

would not have changed the claim construction in any way. Conversely,

Kollmorgen

, the court found that the lack of available review aftera settlement prevented the settled suit's claim construction frombeing binding in a second suit.

Website: http://www.mccarter.com/new/showarticlenew.aspx?Show=4277Slide25

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - AMY I wonder how long this case has been in process? We knowthat at some point the three plaintiffs had separate cases. How longwas each involved before it became a joint case?

Looking at the link provided to the docket, I can see that Acer firstfiled a complaint for declaratory

judgement in Feb 2008. I tried to

cannot register unless I am a court appointed Criminal Justice

Attorney or a US Government Agency (I am probably not looking in the

right place) therefore I'm not sure when

Barco

and HTC first filed

complaints. Looking at the link provided for us for the Acer case, I

can see that Dec 2008 there is a motion to relate the

Barco case.

Finally, it is in January 2012 we see that the Claim Constructionhearing will be held. According to this timeline, both Acer and Barco

have been involved for at least two years jointly. Surprisingly, Ididn't see any mention of HTC in the docket but HTC is listed as aplaintiff in the brief for the joint construction hearing. I found thedocket to be very helpful to get a idea of the timeline for claimconstruction and to see all the motions and stipulations that arefiled over time.Slide26

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - RAM As far as I know, companies like Acer only buy microprocessors from companies like Intel or AMD. If a microprocessor patent is infringed,I expect the patent case to be fought with microprocessor

manufacturing company and not a computer or a cellular phonemanufacturer. After an internet search, I understand that it ispossible to

sue anyone who without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention.

And in this case, the companies have used and have sold

their product which had the patent infringed microprocessor.

or imports:

MUOSI

35 USC

271Slide27

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - KEVIN The easy question is to ask what happened to Judge Fogel, but I already know the answer to that question. A similar question that I am always interested in is who are the experts for each side and what are their qualifications. Dr.

Vojin Oklobzija. As of last January Dr. Oklobzija is the academic department head of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at New Mexico State University.

http://engr.nmsu.edu/news_items/2011_news/news_1_oklobdzija.shtmlSlide28

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

We stopped here on 2/2 and discussed KSRSubsequent slides we covered on 2/2 are markedusually in the top right. Some of those slides we did not finish.

Others we finished we may revisit.

egun

2/2Slide29

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - WAQAS I wondered about the background of Judge Ware. I had already spent a bit of time on it before reading this question so here goes:Here Judge Ware lays out some of his thoughts on how patent language needs to be

understood as how it would have been understood at the time by someone of ordinary skill and that he says weighs even above the testimony of the actual inventor. That’s something I find against the spirit of patent protection from an inventors perspective.

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/2011keynote.pdf In this article Judge Ware discusses some rules that can be used in dealing with patent evidence and also some difficulties in developing more rules due to the differing standards of Circuit and District courts.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/sccj23&div=31&g_sent=1&collection=journals

On his withdrawn nomination from the federal circuit:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1997_Nov_19.WARE.html

http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r105:3:./temp/~r105PFiUd3::

A fairly harsh response to the scandal:

http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/spring98/stories_the_infamous_ninth.htm

Don’t blame Judge

Ware.1. The statute (that is, Congress) supports this.2. The Supreme Court and

the Fed Cir (his Bosses) have said or at least implied this. 3

. The ordinary artisan, being a legal fiction, can’t lie, die, forget, misremember, have an ax to grind, or be confused by opposing counsel. Slide30

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - PATRICK Question: Where and when were these cases all filed? How did they getconsolidated?Answer: After playing around with Lexis

Courtlink (gotta love thestudent subscription - "Normal Cost $200, Your Cost $0"), it looks

like there were 3 DJ actions filed against Technology Properties et alin ND Cal on the same date, Feb. 8, 2008. The three cases were filed

by Acer & Gateway (08-00877 JF), HTC (08-00882 JL) and Asus (08-00884

EMC). After Acer and Gateway were assigned to Judge

Fogel

, they

motioned to consolidate (or 'relate') the three cases, which was

granted on Apr. 22, 2008. Then another company,

Barco

N.V. filed

another DJ on Dec. 1, 2008 in ND Cal and subsequently filed a motion

to relate its case to the existing three, which was granted on Dec.17, 2008. Interestingly enough though, the Asus case does not appearon the joint claim construction brief, which leads me to believe that

they might have settled. But in my quick research I could not find outwhen or why they dropped out.Slide31

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

I WONDER - SAM I wondered where the term "Markman brief" came from. After some quick searching, I learned that it refers to the claims construction hearings in general, named after Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc.

, which set a precedent that terms of art and in particular claims would be construed by the judge, not the jury. Useful websites include:http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-to-cound/trial/markman-v-westview-instruments-inc/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jlawp5&div=31&id=&page=Slide32

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jlawp5&div=31&id=&page=Slide33

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-Up – verb phrase with READ -1. ONLast week we discussed READ ON. Review:

If a claim READS ON the prior art, it is INVALID. If a claim READS ON the accused device, it is INFRINGED.

Think of a two-column chart.

“READING ON” means you

read

the left and compare it to the right – you read the claim ON the other thing. If there is a 1:1 correspondence, the claim READS ON the other thing.

On the left, the claim (reformatted).

On the right, quotations

- from the prior art (or expert testimony about it) or

- from manuals, fact or expert testimony, etc. describing

the accused device.Slide34

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Verb phrase with READ -2. INYou must not ‘read in’ a limitation from the specification.On the other hand, you construe the meaning of claim terms by interpreting them ‘in light of the specification.’

Is it that if I do it, it is proper claim construction, but if you do it, it is the sin of READING IN?Not quite. This will make sense (a little more) after you have begun to struggle with your simulation patents.Slide35

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Verb phrase with READ -3. OUTYou must not ‘read out’ a limitation that is in the claim.On the other hand, if the limitation, properly construed, adds nothing to the claim, you are just doing proper claim construction.

This will make sense (a little more) after you have begun to struggle with your simulation patents.Slide36

EQUITY

R56

Ineq

. Conduct283 Injunction284 Multiple Damages285 Award of atty fees

- Patent Misuse

FACT

101 Lack of Utility

102a Anticipation

102g Diligence

102g Corroboration

103

Analogous

Art

112P2 Best

Mode

112

P1Written Descrip.R56 Intent (Ineq. Cond.)R56

Materiality (Ineq. Cond.) 271

Infringe. – literal271 Infringe.

– DOE285 Exceptional Case

Compiled first in the 1990s, then made into a slide for Adv Pat Seminar 11/15/05, updated for

Sci Ev

Seminar 9/5/07 and updated again for Sci Ev

2012. See also pdf pages 31-33 of my amicus brief in Microsoft v. i4i. -

rjm

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012LAW101

Patentable Subj. Matter102b Experimental/Public Use102b On Sale 102g Priority of Inv.

102g Conception 102g Reduc. to Prac.103 Obviousness

112P1 Enablement112P2 Indefiniteness

[101, 102, 103,112,271] Claim ConstructionNB: All statute numbers are pre-AIA . Some have changed, with various effective dates.

Catch-Up – Law and Fact (and

Equity)

egun

2/2Slide37

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Tim – shaping expert testimony; attacking the other expert; hiring expertsMy own experience has informed me that I should never allow myself as a litigator to be mired in trivial details and theoretical debates. What's important is constructing a coherent, convincing, and compelling narrative, for the specific case in hand. Is that true?

If the above is true, then allowing a patent dispute to degenerate into a "battle of the experts" over scientific details incomprehensible and uninteresting to the fact finder would not be the winning move. How does one maintain narrative when talking to a Ph.D. whose duty is to talk science?

An experienced litigator has once told me that the best way to attack an opposing expert witness is to bypass the scientific details and destroy his credibility

. Is that true? After all, as Sun Tzu wrote, "If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.“ An expert witness's greatest weapon is his knowledge, and challenging him about scientific details is little different from laying siege to a town.

If the above is true, then how should one go about

cleanly and respectfully, but brutally and efficiently, tearing down an opposing expert witness's credibility in the eyes of the fact finder?

hat are

typical chinks in an expert witness's

armor that can be exploited?

(“

Individual concern”) I would like to learn more about the practicalities of

expert witness battles. It is, of course, difficult to talk about this subject matter in class. But I have known of cases where, for instance, race and "funny names" are successfully used by litigators to undermine opposing scientific testimony. And this is an issue, especially when many scientific experts are foreigners and immigrants (e.g., 40% of all graduate students at MIT). U.S. society is simply not as enlightened as we would hope it to be; and many patent battles take place in areas of the country that are still very backward in thinking. Should that play into my calculations? How and why?Slide38

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Attacking the other side’s ExpertTreating an expert like any old witness in a he-said-she-said contest: making ner sweat and stutter and get angry and… GOOD IDEA?

What makes one expert more CREDIBLE than another?

How do juries view all the things that make killer litigators excited?Slide39

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions - Nicolaj I was a bit puzzled by the discussion raised by Plaintiff's counsel in the Acer case re interpretation of the prosecution history (and the patentee's later amendments during prosecution). This led to a short discussion between Plaintiff's counsel and Judge Ware about what point in time the claim construction should take its outset

. No clear conclusion came out of that. I know that for validity purposes we construe the claims as the PHOSITA would understand as per date of filing. But what about infringement, I think

Lemley taught us that for infringement purposes we construe the claims as the PHOSITA would understand them as per date of the infringement. I just got a bit confused, if you have a claim construction hearing like in the Acer case and both validity and infringement is argued (which I guess is the normal - and we also heard Plaintiff's counsel (the one with "the skirt" say that Judge Ware's construction would have great impact on the infringement issues)), would you not in a way have to have two claim construction hearings - one for validity purposes and one for infringement?

B: Judge Ware talked a bit about the hypothetical "PHOSITA", but during the tutorial we did not hear any of the counsels address the issue of who might be the relevant PHOSITA for this case (maybe for a good reason as this issue might be more relevant to address at the actual claim construction hearing the following day), but I was just wondering (and thought we could discuss) who the PHOSITA might be for this case?

C: Will it be possible to appeal Judge Ware's claim construction - or will the parties have to wait until a final decision on the merits has been rendered? Slide40

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions - Corinne Overall, motions for reconsideration, like that in _BCS_ _v.__Cordis_, are rare. Are they any more common in the claim construction context? On that note, what kind of review is available for claim constructions, in general? They likely can't be appealed before a final judgment, but it seems courts would be reluctant to grant interlocutory appeals on the issue

, despite it's importance. Does this play into the calculation for making a motion for reconsideration?

b. Regarding the field trip: What does the class think about the plaintiff's argument that the ring oscillator should be defined as "non-controllable"? Were they convinced? Would knowing about theallegedly infringing product help/hurt their analysis in any way?

It‘s already

obvious

why each party wants the term defined in their respective ways.

What more could knowing about the product add? If it would add something, is that something appropriate to consider during claim construction?

c. Regarding claim construction: does the Judge _have_ to pick one of the parties' suggested interpretations, or can he make up his own? At the hearing, Judge Ware appeared ready to invent his own construction

for some of the terms. Is this common?

2. Questions about individual concerns

a. It seems like we will have very limited time to prepare the simulations—the quarter is already half over. Is our workload suddenly about to mushroom?

b. In our simulations, how will we argue infringement without the benefit of claim construction?

Why pretend (and pat yourself on the back for pretending) that you do NOT know about the product? (The obviousness stems from… what? IGNORANCE of the product?)

They’re not reluctant. The Fed Cir made

it a policy, right after

Markman

, of NEVER granting petitions for interlocutory appealSlide41

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

courts would be reluctant to grant interlocutory appeals on the issue, despite it's importance. Does this play into the calculation for making a motion for reconsideration?

b. Regarding the field trip: What does the class think about the plaintiff's argument that the ring oscillator should be defined as "non-controllable"? Were they convinced? Would knowing about the

allegedly infringing product help/hurt their analysis in any way?

It‘s already

obvious

why each party wants the term defined in their respective ways.

What more could knowing about the product add? If it would add something, is that something appropriate to consider during claim construction?

c. Regarding claim construction: does the Judge _have_ to pick one of the parties' suggested interpretations, or can he make up his own? At the hearing

, Judge Ware appeared ready to invent his own construction

for some of the terms. Is this common?

2. Questions about individual concerns

a. It seems like we will have very limited time to prepare the simulations—the quarter is already half over. Is our workload suddenly about to mushroom?

b. In our simulations

, how will we argue infringement without the benefit of claim construction

You *can* make your

simulation JUST claim construction. Or argue it along with infringement.

Things to remember:

1. From the time that patents had claims until 1994, claim construction was not dealt with separately, not even in bench trials (“bench” = NO jury).

2. Some judges STILL don’t decide claim construction until after trial.

3. Most districts do not have patent Local Rules.

Judge Ware can come up with his own construction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit can come up with yet a different one.

DONE on 2/2Slide42

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions - Amanda 1. Class Discussion a. Is the tutorial a useful and truly neutral process? It was easy to hear arguments from the attorneys sneak in, so what do we think about that?

b. Who has the burden of proof in a DJ dealing with infringement? We know the burden is on the filthy rotten patent owner in a normal infringement action, but it seems the procedural posture requires it be on the plaintiffs (greedy slimy accused infringers) here.

c. If it's true that it's the claims that truly matter,

why does adjusting the specification make you lose the filing date?

Doesn't this seem

an entirely artificial requirement if it doesn't technically

"matter."

But

then again it has to support the claims

for the claims to be valid. So what's the deal?

Define “matter”!

Patents must “TEACH.” That is the quid pro quo for the MONOPOLY.

BOP is determined by the issue, not who is plaintiff and who is defendant.

egun

2/2Slide43

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions - Kevin*Q1:* During the claim construction hearing it appeared as though the 336patent covered the concept of putting a second (ring oscillator variablespeed) clock on the microprocessor and was not as fully developed as the

later products that are now alleged to infringe. Is it likely the plaintiffs will claim the reverse doctrine ofequivalents[1]<file:///C:/Users/Kevin/Documents/Scientific%20Evidence%20in%20Patent%20Litigation/2.2/Catchup.docx#_ftn1

>(RDOE)at a potential trial as a defense to infringement(?) and, if so, howlikely is it that such a strategy will be successful? (My guess is very

unlikely and less than 5%)

*Q2: *Are there strategic benefits to raising the RDOE even if it is

unlikely to be successful on its own? Does it help to color the case?

You’re right. RDE is the last refuge of scoundrels (well, not the original one). Or so I learned from a very big Big Kid who, to the best of my knowledge, never told me something I later found to be untrue.

egun

2/2Slide44

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Kevin’s Questions - 2*Q3:* The defendant in the case claimed that the 336 patent stood up to 16 ex parte reexams and ~900 prior art references. Is this an atypically large

number of reexam proceedings and references cited?

Should much credence be given to these statistics?

*Q4:* What are the origins of Agility IP Law? Where did the firm’s

attorneys previously work, when did they jump ship, and why?

*Q5:* What were people’s thoughts on the use of the various

metaphors and

presentation styles

we observed in court? Which attorney was most effective and why? Was there anything that surprised you by the proceedings or the way the attorneys handled themselves?

Yes

What ‘credence’? What might the statistics prove? Do they?

Wilson,

Sonsini

egun

2/2Slide45

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions -Chris1. The cases we have to discussed so far were quite complex. I would like discuss an example claim and a possible design-around to better understand what it takes not to infringe a patent.2. Person of ordinary skill in the art.

Would an inventor be a person of extraordinary skill in the art? You also mentioned the 'POSITA' is a myth. What exactly did you mean by that? 3. Whenever a patent gets declared invalid, are the prosecutors of the patent in trouble? Could you sue them for writing you a bad patent?

That’s what you’ll do in preparing for the simulation. You’ll have your teammates and me to help you.

Yup. If you got a patent, you’re not ordinary (until the patent is invalidated for obviousness…)

Invalid, not likely. WHY?

Unenforceable (violation of the duty of candor), possibly. I occasionally taught such a case... Not sure it’s in the Winter 2004 materials, though.

The ordinary artisan is a legal fiction, a way of thinking that should lead to justice. The OAATTOI (my newest acronym: oh-AAH-toy; AAH like the a in map) is like the Reasonably Prudent Person in Tort Law.Slide46

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

That’s what you’ll do in preparing for the simulation. You’ll have your teammates and me to help you.

Yup. If you got a patent, you’re not ordinary (until the patent is invalidated for obviousness…)

Invalid, not likely. WHY?

Unenforceable (violation of the duty of candor), possibly. I occasionally taught such a case... Not sure it’s in the Winter 2004 materials, though.

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions - WaqasQ1) We have on multiple occasions said that most parties settle after the claim construction. Are their ever any reasons not to settle? and what do the court proceedings look like after claim construction?Q2) What are things to consider when preparing a person for scientific testimony?Q3) How to approach a scientist/engineer for cross examinations?

See Tim’s Questions and our answers in class.Slide48

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions - RamWhat are the different kinds of patents that can be applied for (isthere anything apart from utility, design and plant)? I am interestedin knowing if there is a specific kind of patent that is required for

inventions in pharmaceutical industry.Can discoveries also be patented or does it necessarily have to be aninvention. For example, if it is discovered that root or leaf extract

of a plant A has anti-cancer properties, can it be patented?

That’s the universe in the US. There are no other kinds of patents?

Drug patents are ‘utility patents.’Slide49

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Catch-up: Your Questions -Jamie4. Should the patent system allow monetization of patent rights by companies that don’t actually bring a product to market (e.g. non-practicing entities (“NPEs”))?

By threatening product-based companies with lawsuits and compelling them to license the patent rights to an invention the NPE neither invented nor plans to make, are non-practicing entities extracting unearned revenues from mid-sized and large companies that could have instead funded more R&D? Or, by providing cash for inventor’s whose product might not otherwise make it to market, are non-practicing entities helping to encourage innovation? Might your answer depend on (

i) the amount of money an NPE invests in small inventors (i.e. the amount it expends to purchase patents from small inventors) vs. (ii) the amount of money an NPE spends trolling for royalties (i.e. the amount of money it extracts from bigger companies like Apple,

Lenovo

, or Samsung through its lawsuits and license agreements)?

. Do the engineers in the class think that judges are really qualified to interpret the claims of highly-specialized technologies during MARKMAN hearings? If ACER is any indication, how often do you think they get it right

2. At the Patent Pilot Program presentation two weeks ago, Chief Judge Ware emphasized

the favor a party gains when they “concede” certain points

during proceedings. Chief Judge Ware explained, “Often counsel for each party will try to take the most extreme positions possible, as opposed to taking a reasonable position to help us get closer to the true meaning of the claims during the claim construction process.” Did either counsel for the litigants in the ACER last week exhibit this “reasonable” approach in their presentation?

3. Do you feel that NDCA Local Rule 4-3, which requires parties to submit joint claim construction briefs, helps foster cooperation between opposing parties (i.e. encouraging them to agree on claim term meanings) or merely encourages them to pick the ten most disputed and case-

dispositive

claim terms, confining the battlefield and creating a highly contentious environment?

Slide50

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Jamie’s Questions -2QUESTIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS1. Based on Chief Judge Ware’s comment that file wrappers should be better organized to facilitate claim construction, is the patent office undertaking any efforts to improve the organization of existing or newly filed documents to assist judges in understanding and accessing the information concerning a patent’s prosecution history?

2. I was hoping to get further clarification on one of Chief Judge Ware’s questions regarding claim construction for a patent that has undergone reexamination. He asked,

“does the judge at a MARKMAN hearing read the clams as a PHOSITA would have read them at the time of reexamination or when the patent application was originally filed?”

Plaintiff’s counsel seemed unsure whereas his co-counsel from Cooley (Heidi Keefe) seemed to be nodding her head in the affirmative.

3. Why do most judges not elect to take on a technical advisor as Chief Judge Ware has done in ACER? Depending on the complexity of the technology, it seems incredibly inefficient not to bring on someone to at least assist the judge. Why would a judge expend the kind of resources a district court does and then risk misinterpreting the science behind the invention? Moreover, in a jurisdiction like NDCA where the court requires the parties to identify the most case-

dispositive

claim terms in the case (Rule 4-3),

how can a judge ensure the parties have really honed in on the pressure points of a claim without understanding the technology objectively with the assistance of a technical advisor?

Also about Acer: q 1, previously slideSlide51

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Amy’s Questions 1) We haven't really discussed the role of the technical expert inpatent litigation yet.

Will we have time to go over this before westart working on the simulations?

Does the technical expert help the litigator come up with arguments for court/trial?

Is the role of the

expert just to be examined and cross-examined in trial?

2) How are groups for the simulation going to be formed/decided?

Suggestions:

For the future, you could have an optional additional section for

graduate students to go over some legal terms and the legal system (relating to patent law and litigation) so that they can be 'caught up' before the class starts.

I’ve done that every other year. You can look for the Instant Patent Law slides on previous

sciev.YR

webpages

. I open it to law students, too. How about Tuesday afternoon? I’ll look for a room, or we can do it in my office. BYOC and I’ll post the slides.

egun

2/2Slide52

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Sam’s Questions 1) Questions.a) What does "substantially" mean in patents

? I've come across phrases like "substantially the same material" and "with time betweenexcitation and detection being substantially equal to the fluorescencelifetime." Is this quantifiable or is it similar to the 99.9%

certainty of "beyond reasonable doubt"? The two examples I gave seemlike different uses, as at first glance I would say "substantially the

same material" would mean the same except for color or some cosmetic

difference, whereas for a time interval, it must involve some

precision.

b) I'd be curious to know an example

of the dream suit you mentioned in which the PO would be caught both ways on either winning infringement but losing validity or winning validity but losing infringement

It seems that looking at the court decisions and history of a suit like this would be a great exercise, at least for non-law students.

c) I'm intrigued (and maybe a bit concerned) that in the claims

construction hearing, the complexity seems to be simply in the word

games. The word "asynchronous" is not difficult to define clearly for

someone skilled in the art, but for a judge and lawyers (and probablyjury) it proved elusive. On the other hand, a scientist or engineerwould likely be biased based on his/her experience in ways that ajudge would not. This seems like an unfortunate situation: aspecialist-arbiter may be biased whereas a lay person is supposedlyless biased, even though a specialist would immediately understand the

crucial concepts and definitions (and be honest about them, or atleast they should be in scientific fields) while the lay person mightget them wrong or distort them deliberately (resulting in appeals and

more uncertainty). Am I right in thinking of the PHOSITA idea as someinexact way to bridge this gap?.

Ask a law student about books and websites!

d) Will we talk much about the AIA and its predicted effects, either now or later in the class?

2) Individual questions:

a) Can you recommend any primer of legal terms, such as a short book or maybe a website that could serve as a crash course in all law and legal procedures (not just patent law). I'd like a better broad knowledge, and the vocabulary/jargon seems like a barrier to "joining the club" that I'd like to get through.

Yes! Exactly right!

Surely your joking? We can have a reunion in the spring or summer quarter, though, and talk about it. That would be fun!Slide53

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

KSRDiscuss!Slide54

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

Claim Interpretation and File HistoriesAs you look at a patent, especially its claim 1 and its file history, think about:ideas for design-arounds and noninfringement arguments

ideas for invalidity arguments any questions for which YOU need/would be an expertSlide55

02/02/2012

RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter 2012

2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjmWeek 0155

Validity

Infringement

Preponderance

C&C

WHO HAS THE BOP?

WHAT IS THE QOP?

How do BOP and QOP affect the litigators and scientific experts?

Major Issues of Liability in Patent Law