Justin T. BeckRobert B. Morrill Brian E. Mitchell
January 30, 2013
1
• PTO Procedures (cont.)• Discovery• Experts
3
Ex Parte reexam of network jukebox patent
Examiner finds prior art karaoke machine anticipates
Board reverses based on◦ Claim construction of “jukebox” limited to
“coin operated”◦ Impression that karaoke machines are
only operated by DJs Both arguments could have been
rebutted in an inter partes review
4
Trial Court finds claims for use of vacuum in “healing” wounds are obvious and grants JMOL
Federal Circuit reverses based on construction of “healing” that requires complete healing, rather than improvement
PTO’s “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard applied to “healing” and reduced burden of proof might lead to a different result.
5
“The grant rate of motions to stay is highly judge-dependent and (somewhat less obviously) district-dependent.”
Matthew Smith, Foley & Lardner
6
What if the patentee amends the claims before the PTO?
What if the PTO invalidates the claims, but the patentee appeals?
What if the PTO confirms the claims, but the accused infringer appeals?
What if the PTO adopts a different claim construction from the District Court?
Defendant:◦ Cheaper◦ Efficient (especially for court)◦ PTO has expertise in patent validity◦ No Prejudice
Plaintiff:◦ Long delay◦ Case will not go away◦ Untimely
7
Stay with conditions imposed◦ Submit all art◦ Agree to estoppel
Stay preferred for inter partes review Long delays still seen as a problem
8
“Essentially a reprosecution of all claims”
Reasons for filing:◦ Write new claims to cover competitor◦ Broaden claims (within 2 years)◦ Narrow claims because of prior art
What can’t be fixed:◦ New matter/best mode◦ Inequitable conduct◦ Recapture surrendered matter
9
Reissue?◦ Who can file a reissue application?◦ Save money◦ New claim limiting the tube to a “tapered tube” to
overcome the enablement issue◦ New method claim to cover sequential use of
multiple floats
10
Reexamination?◦ What art can be considered? Smith reference, since not before the PTO Also raises the issue of inequitable conduct
Second prior art publication? Section 303 allows the PTO to consider previously cited
references◦ Should the court order a stay for reissue or
reexamination? Infringement not before the PTO Section 102(g) issue not before the PTO Prior invention by another
11
A. Cannot be considered – not a patent or printed publication
B. If Snyder was previously considered and the examiner decided the claims were not anticipated, cannot be considered again for anticipation
Tip: Use Snyder in a new obviousness argument
12
C. Cannot be considered – not a patent or printed publication
D. Cannot be considered
13
• PTO Procedures (cont.)• Discovery• Experts
15
“I have always been a supporter of discovery, and discovery has always supported me.” Anonymous Patent Litigator
When? What do I want? What do I need? How do I get it? How much will it
cost? What will be the
response?
16
Keep senior lawyers involved Remember what goes around comes around Discovery is a means, not an end
17
Must discuss: Preservation ESI and eDiscovery Proportionality and costs Search methods Phasing
Document production format Limits on discovery Privilege
18
Joint Case Management Conference Statement – Rule 26(f)◦ Based on meet and confer
Initial Disclosures – Rule 26(a)◦ 14 days after Rule 26(f) conference
Case Management Conference – Rule 16(b)◦ Changes based on Local Rules?
19
Initial Disclosures Protective order Contention interrogatories◦ Answer at the end of the case?◦ Answer in the expert reports?
Scope of electronic discovery
20
What are the boundaries of discovery?◦ Information must be reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence◦ Burden/expense◦ Time
What can further limit discovery?◦ Federal/Local Rules◦ The Court (standing orders)◦ Attorney/client privilege and work product ◦ Protective orders
21
Foreign parties Third parties Parent/subsidiary/supplier/contractor Document control Electronic files Confidential material
22
Interim coverage Levels of protection In-house counsel and prosecutors◦ “Competitive decision-making responsibility
Designation procedures Filings of designated materials Handling of disputes Third parties Termination
23
Typical elements:◦ Disclosure of infringement contentions◦ Production of conception/reduction to practice/first
sale documents◦ Disclosure of invalidity contentions◦ Production of accused product documents
Good cause required to modify contentions Early claim construction
24
Interrogatories - Rule 33 Document requests – Rule 34 Req. for admissions – Rule 36 Depositions – Rule 30◦ 30(b)(6) depositions
Third party discovery – Rule 45◦ Document production◦ Depositions
• Expert Reports - Rule 26
25
What’s Missing From This List?
Limits on number and duration Location◦ General rules ◦ Third parties◦ Foreign witness
Videotaped depositions◦ May give the other side the option of not bringing
the witness to trial◦ What if the witness doesn’t appear at the trial?
Preparation Defending depositions 30(b)(6) issues Claim terms
26
Think about why you are taking the deposition before you take it:◦ Find out the facts?◦ Witness likely to appear at trial? Develop material (sound bites) for cross
examination◦ Witness not likely to appear at trial? Develop a coherent story you can play at trial
27
If the witness will appear at trial, set up the cross:◦ Start with key issues◦ Short Qs and As – “sound bites”◦ Follow up with rambling witnesses◦ So what you’re saying is _________, correct?◦ Play into your case themes◦ Make the witness look (and feel) foolish◦ Ask about the good documents without
showing them and if he disagrees, impeach◦ Save some surprises for trial
28
If the witness will not appear at trial, develop the story:◦ Coherent, interesting and snappy one hour
video taken as if the jury were there◦ Don’t save anything for trial◦ Who? Third party witness out of subpoena range Adversary’s employee who helps you Adversary’s former employee? Beware! “Cross” your employee who won’t be at trial
29
Duty to preserve ESI◦ Secure key players’ electronic documents◦ Meet with client IT personnel◦ Send a litigation hold notice
Duty to produce ESI◦ On motion to compel, party from whom discovery is
sought must show not reasonably accessible ◦ Court may nonetheless order discovery if the
requesting party shows good cause, and may specify conditions for the discovery FRCP 26(b)(2)(B)
30
Mistaken production of privileged information is inevitable
Party claiming inadvertent production may notify receiving party
Receiving party:◦ Must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the information
and not use it until the claim is resolved◦ Must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if
the party disclosed it before being notified◦ May present the information to the court under seal for
determination of the privilege claim. The producing party must preserve the information
until the claim is resolved FRCP 26(b)(5)(B)
31
The Qualcomm Six (Six attorneys culpable in failure to produce may be reported to state bar for sanctions)
Micron v. Rambus, 253 F.R.D. 135 (D. Del. 2009) (Patents held unenforceable where evidence destroyed in anticipation of litigation)
Clear Value Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 46919 (E.D. Tex 2007) (Case dismissed when expert disclosed at trial that adverse evidence had not been produced)
32
Attorney Client—protects communications between attorney and client for purpose of seeking legal advice
Work Product– governed by Rule 26◦ Protects materials prepared by attorney in
anticipation of litigation from discovery◦ Mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
legal theories◦ Includes materials prepared by others
33
Burden/cost Privilege Obstruction Indifference Evasion
34
Common sense Burdensome
procedures Sanctions (fines,
evidence preclusion, public embarrassment)
Discovery Masters Require attorneys to
play Rock, Paper and Scissors on the courthouse steps
35
• PTO Procedures (cont.)• Discovery• Experts
37
Kucala Enterprises v. Auto Wax Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13147 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2002)
38
“[I]n a case involving complex technology, where the accused infringer offers expert testimony negating infringement, the patentee cannot satisfy its burden of proof by relying only on testimony from those who are admittedly not expert in the field. That is what happened here . . ..”
Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc. 390 F3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
39
40
•Honest•Somewhat independent•Communicator/teacher•Battle tested•Has time available•Willing to write a report•Knows the technology
41
• Technical• Patent law• Damages
42
Teach the technology in tutorials For the patent owner: explain why the
accused products infringe Establish the infringer’s defenses:◦ Non-infringement◦ Invalidity◦ Unenforceability
For the patent owner: rebut the defenses
43
When should you select an expert? How many experts should you have? In house versus outside experts? What qualifications should the expert have?
44
Professional Witness? Academic? Working in Field? Inventor or Employee?
45
•Beware the novice expert•Explain the “real world”:
–Written report – who will prepare it?–Deposition techniques–Knowing when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em
46
Entitlement or non-entitlement to lost profits Demand Absence of acceptable non-infringing
alternatives Or market share
Capacity Profit margin
Reasonable royalty base and rate Georgia-Pacific analysis
47
Disclosure of identity of experts Written report required if expert retained or
specially employed to give expert testimony All opinions and bases for opinions Information considered by expert Exhibits used as a summary of opinions Qualifications/publications Compensation Prior engagements and testimony
Undisclosed testimony not allowed at trial
48
• Rule 26• Consultant v. Witness• Providing Information• Writing the Report• Rebuttal Witness• Inventor as Expert
49
Expert employed only for trial preparation generally immune from discovery
Exception: Discovery allowed “on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impractable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means” FRCP 26(b)(4)(D)
50
Expert disclosure limited to “facts or data consideredby the expert in forming his opinion”
“Facts,” not counsel’s theories or impressions Drafts of expert opinion – not discoverable Communications with counsel – not discoverable
except relating to compensation, considered facts/data provided by counsel, assumptions provided by counsel.
(FRCP 26(a)(2)(B))
51
• Deposition–Show your hand at deposition?–Save it for trial?
•Typical Themes–Agrees with us on key issues–False assumptions–Hired gun/professional witness–Prior inconsistent positions
52
• Judge must exclude unreliable expert testimony
• Expert must have sufficient education or experience
• Opinions must be based on sound science
• Opinions must be based on evidence
53
54
“[I]f a proposed expert is a ‘quintessential expert for hire,’ then it seems well within a trial judge’s discretion to apply the Daubert factors with greater rigor. . . .”
Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom Trucks Inc., 484 F.3d 426, 433 (6th Cir. 2007)
Judges look at the expert’s specific qualifications to ensure appropriate for the case
Damages experts are subject to particularly close scrutiny
55