Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/intellectual-property-quarterly-newslett-88215/
Timestamp: 2015-03-01 01:42:27
Document Index: 744267895

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 271', '§ 271']

Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter - Winter 2008 | Morrison & Foerster LLP - JDSupra
Bidding for a Copyright Injunction After eBay, pg. 2 --------------------------
New Law Expected to Add Teeth to Current Counterfeiting Laws, pg. 3
Intervening Rights: Protection from Liability After Reexamination, pg. 6
Induced Infringement in Broadcam v. Qualcomm, pg. 8
Research Tool Patents: A Light at the End of the Tunnel? pg. 10
IP Practice News, pg. 11
Download PDF Intellectual Property Newsletter busy fall for thanks in Circuit’s ruling In re Bilski (click on the case With lately, we make sure of the newsletter covered some developments law. We first assess the effects eBay on copyright Next, look got a Congress with Resources and Organization to neglect in Broadcom InnovaSystems. the Broadcom we discuss of opinions companies, the Federal Circuit’s in Proveris applies in the area of research Finally, the protection offered you find informative. we will the latest developments law and make sure updated with events. from the Editors --------------------------eBay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Team ----------------------------------------------------------------------Crotty, Managing Editor Davis, Managing Editor Noonen, Woodmansee, Managing Editor ----------------------------------------------------------------------Contributing Charlesworth, Contributing Editor Hasse, Contributing Editor Stevaux, Contributing Contributing Editor Lee Taylor, Contributing Editor Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter Winter 2008 Note from the Editors It was a busy fall for IP law, thanks in part from patent infringement offered by to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in intervening rights. 2Bidding for a Copyright (click on the case name to read our We hope you find this edition of the IP Injunction After eBay analysis). With patent law getting so much Newsletter informative. As always, we will 3 attention lately, we wanted to make sure continue to monitor the latest developments New Law Expected to this edition of the newsletter covered some in IP law and make sure to keep our clients Add Teeth to Current important developments in copyright and Counterfeiting Laws and readers updated with analysis of trademark law. We first assess the effects current events. 6 of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. Intervening Rights: MercExchange on copyright cases. Protection from Next, Liability After we take a look at trademark enforcement, Reexamination Editorial Team which got a boost from Congress and the 8 president with the October signing of the Jason Crotty, Managing Editor Induced Infringement Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Peter Davis, Managing Editor in Broadcam v. Qualcomm Intellectual Property Act. Not to neglect Martin Noonen, Managing Editor the ever-changing landscape of patent M. Andrew Woodmansee, Managing Editor 10 jurisprudence, we include articles on the Research Tool Patents: Amy Beckman, Contributing Editor A Light at the End of Federal Circuit’s findings in Broadcom v. Jacqueline Charlesworth, Contributing Editor the Tunnel? Qualcomm and Proveris v. InnovaSystems. Ted Hasse, Contributing Editor In the Broadcom article, we discuss 11 Katherine Nolan-Stevaux, Ph.D., IP Practice News the relevance of opinions of counsel to Contributing Editor showing intent for inducement. For life Elizabeth Richardson, Contributing Editor sciences companies, the Federal Robert Saltzberg, Contributing Editor Circuit’s Jennifer Lee Taylor, Contributing Editor ruling in Proveris applies new guidance on infringement in the area of research tool patents. Finally, our recurring section on reexaminations discusses the protection Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page TCourt’s eBay v. addressed the injunctive future method eBay, rejected a upon a of patent and held a The Court then set when considering the patent to demonstrate: it has suffered (2) that remedies available monetary damages, for (3) that, considering and defendant, a equity not be disserved permanent injunction.” the Court copyright that the Court “invitations traditional with automatically follows a has infringed.” renewed motion relief, the eBay court interpreted the Supreme as Court’s can longer presume simply because been respect of the eBay district on the plaintiff injury “casespecific of eBay are being felt in decision, the majority of courts motion have fourfactor that relief a Moreover, it appears courts are following district court cases when considering the seeking should be prepared factors, harm will the requested relief. eBay addressed the propriety injunction, in the context motion clear. than forth eBay, of courts appear the existing balancing when considering 3 for a Copyright Injunction eBay By Jacqueline Charlesworth Bidding for a Copyright Injunction After eBay By Jacqueline Charlesworth he Supreme Court’s 2006 patent owner and those of a copyright considering a motion for a permanent decision in eBay Inc. v. owner, observing that the Court injunction upon a finding of copyright T MercExchange addressed has “consistently rejected invitations infringement have applied eBay’s fourthe standard for permanent injunctive to replace traditional equitable factor test to reject the assertion that relief to prevent future infringement considerations with a rule that an a plaintiff is automatically entitled to of a business-method patent for an injunction automatically follows a injunctive relief upon a showing of electronic marketplace. In eBay, determination that a copyright has infringement. Moreover, it appears the Court rejected the presumption been infringed.” that at least some courts are following in favor of granting a permanent On remand, in ruling on the lead of the eBay district court in injunction upon a finding of patent denying the presumption of irreparable MercExchange’s renewed motion for infringement and held that a court’s harm that has typically governed in permanent injunctive relief, the eBay decision whether to grant or deny copyright cases when considering the district court interpreted the Supreme such relief is “an act of equitable question of permanent injunctive relief. Court’s directive as having significance discretion.” The Court then set forth Thus, plaintiffs seeking permanent beyond a mere equitable checklist. a traditional four-factor test for courts In the view of the district court, the injunctive relief for copyright to follow when considering permanent Supreme Court’s holding also meant infringement should be well prepared injunctive relief in the patent context, to demonstrate the four eBay factors, that courts can no longer presume requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate: the critical factor of irreparable including how irreparable harm will “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable harm simply because there has been result absent the requested injury; (2) that remedies available relief. a determination of infringement. Because eBay addressed the propriety at law, such as monetary damages, Accordingly, with respect to the of a permanent injunction, its are inadequate to compensate for irreparable harm prong of the eBay relevance in the context of a motion that injury; (3) that, considering the test, the district court determined for preliminary injunctive relief is balance of hardships between the that the burden was on the plaintiff to less clear. Rather than adhering to plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in prove irreparable injury through “caseequity is warranted; and (4) that the the specific factors set forth in eBay, specific facts.” public interest would not be disserved the majority of courts appear to be by a permanent injunction.” Notably, The effects of eBay are being felt in invoking the existing balancing test in reaching its decision, the Court the copyright world. Following the of their circuit when considering drew a parallel between the rights of a eBay decision, the majority of courts preliminary injunctions in copyright Continued on Page 3 morrison & foerster llp — page 2 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page 4 for a Injunction 2 This may be because existing standards incorporate equitable including, injury, Traditionally, harm has presumed at the preliminary stage upon an showing however, has caused some courts a properly applies. does not answer this question; one court has noted, the issue to be “clarified.” that eBay in the preliminary opining to irreparable harm the ends of equity.” In seeking copyright infringement in he or she should be ready to for irreparable harm. Law Expected to Add Teeth to Current Laws By Jennifer Lee Taylor and Ted Hasse Rthe increase violations laws a serious threat to the economy, finally the Prioritizing Resources has not without those have as it Nevertheless, modifications, it passed including the Senate. enhance remedies trademark civil penalties and personnel establish will Congress. was Act has several outlined Enhanced Civil and Criminal Remedies IP Act, not only will be more dangerous, the specter instances will also be caught in run-themill counterfeiting of the types outside of the such as eyewear, personal is established, will recovering attorneys’ fees, as under current law. damages the PRO statutory damages available trademark Bidding for a New Law Expected to Add Teeth to Current Copyright Injunction Counterfeiting Laws Continued from Page 2 By Jennifer Lee Taylor and Ted Hasse cases. This may be because existing ecognizing that the increase The PRO IP Act has several preliminary injunction standards in willful violations of components that should help brand already incorporate equitable R U.S. counterfeiting laws owners as outlined below. considerations, including, typically, pose a serious threat to the economy, ENhANCEd CIvIl ANd consideration of irreparable injury, both chambers of Congress finally CrImINAl rEmEdIEs among other factors. Traditionally, passed the Prioritizing Resources Under the PRO IP Act, not only will the factor of irreparable harm has and Organization for Intellectual counterfeiting be more dangerous, been presumed at the preliminary Property Act (“the PRO IP Act”). with the specter of 20 years in injunction stage based upon an The bill has had the strong support prison for certain instances of initial showing of infringement. of IP owners from the beginning, counterfeiting, it will also be more eBay, however, has caused some but was not without criticism costly for those caught in run-of-thecourts to question whether such a from those who have viewed it as mill counterfeiting of the types of presumption still properly applies. pandering to the recording industry items that one commonly finds sold eBay does not answer this question; as it continues its efforts to stop peer on street corners, outside of sporting as one court has noted, the issue to peer file sharing. Nevertheless, events, and over the Internet, such as remains to be “clarified.” Another after several modifications, it passed fashion accessories, eyewear, personal court has suggested that eBay with bipartisan support in both the care products, consumer electronics, is inapposite in the preliminary House and the Senate, including software, and music. relief context, opining that “[a] a unanimous vote in the Senate. First, when intentional trademark presumption temporarily removing The bill will enhance remedies for counterfeiting is established, actual the need to prove irreparable harm willful trademark counterfeiting, damages will automatically be trebled, may serve the ends of equity.” In enhance civil and criminal penalties absent extenuating circumstances. short, while a plaintiff seeking for counterfeiters, provide more This is in addition to recovering preliminary injunctive relief in a funding and personnel for federal reasonable attorneys’ fees, as post-eBay copyright infringement and state enforcement, and establish permitted under current law. For those action may still benefit from the a new cabinet-level IP enforcement trademark owners who elect to rely on traditional presumption, in light coordinator who will report directly statutory damages instead of actual of the uncertainty surrounding the to the president and Congress. The damages, the PRO IP Act doubles the issue, he or she should be ready to bill was signed by President Bush on maximum statutory damages available make the case for irreparable harm. October 13, 2008. for willful trademark counterfeiting Continued on Page 4 morrison & foerster llp — page 3 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page Laws 3 as for non-willful to $200,000. These in damages to civil actions, at least have assets be the ten years years activities include “trafficking” trademark goods knowingly or recklessly” causing the counterfeit life enhanced have the of are the Internet. forfeiture laws will In goods, IP Act to “such to be systems are to content. These go further harsh of property obtained through That business property, Enhanced La w Enforcement there are of government agencies in establish the cabinet-Coordinator (“high-IPEC be with confirmation, and will to the president The IPEC will comprised of Senateconfirmed representatives departments and agencies The State, and Customs the U.S. Patent Office, and a federal agencies. primary be to develop strategic strategic issues: streamlining enforcement, coordinating sharing (iv) taking other other countries to establish standards for consulting with is is developed for to partner with counterfeiting and be than 5 Current the PRO IP Act will permit the number of departments and agencies Counterfeiting Laws confiscation and destruction of including: The Department of Continued from Page 3 property used to “to commit or Homeland Security, the Department facilitate” such acts — a provision of Justice, the Department of State, likely to be used to facilitate the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, from $1 million to $2 million, as seizure of computer systems and U.S. Immigration and Customs well as for non-willful counterfeiting computer equipment that are Enforcement, the Food and Drug from $100,000 to $200,000. These being used to counterfeit products Administration, the U.S. Patent increases in statutory damages is and digital content. These new and Trademark Office, the U.S. expected to result in more efforts forfeiture laws go further still, Copyright Office, and a number of by trademark owners to enforce mirroring harsh penalties for drug other federal agencies. their rights in civil actions, at least dealing in the U.S., by allowing for for those counterfeiters who have seizure of property “derived from The primary function of this significant assets against which a any proceeds” obtained through committee will be to develop judgment could be enforced. counterfeiting activities. That can a “joint strategic plan” to fight mean the seizure of cash, investment counterfeiting and piracy, with the Second, the PRO IP Act doubles the assets, business property, real estate, joint strategic plan focusing on maximum period of imprisonment homes, and even automobiles. seven issues: (i) reducing domestic from ten years to twenty years for certain counterfeiting activities. ENhANCEd lAw and international counterfeiting, ENforCEmENT (ii) streamlining enforcement, These activities include “trafficking” Recognizing that there are a (iii) coordinating information sharing in counterfeit trademark goods and number of government agencies between agencies, (iv) taking down “knowingly or recklessly” causing that have roles in protecting and bodily injury. If the counterfeit known counterfeiting networks, enforcing IP rights, the PRO IP goods resulted in a death, the (v) assisting other nations in Act will establish the cabinet-level counterfeiter could face life in prison. enforcing IP rights, (vi) working position of an Intellectual Property These enhanced remedies have with other countries to establish Enforcement Coordinator (“IPEC”), been sorely needed to address the international standards for protecting an IP Czar of sorts, a high-profile increasing numbers of counterfeit IP rights, and (vii) constructing federal position. The IPEC will be pharmaceutical products that are processes for consulting with appointed by the president, with available over the Internet. industry. It is hoped that if a Senate confirmation, and will Third, criminal forfeiture laws process is developed for the federal report directly to the president and against counterfeiters will be Congress. The IPEC will chair a government to partner with industry toughened. In addition to allowing new interagency IP enforcement in fighting counterfeiting and piracy, for the confiscation and destruction committee comprised of Senate-the combined efforts will be more of counterfeit and infringing goods, confirmed representatives from a successful than under current law. Continued on Page 5 morrison & foerster llp — page 4 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page of and some speculated that it does the protection S.; position create Given by the PRO-IP the bill is vetoed will be the PRO IP Act will for criminal including more and in funding of Justice to enhanced with a year in grants to state agencies for enforcement against Expanding the Fight Globally well, internationally. In enforcement to the IPEC, the PRO States international in that “terrorists and organized some and declares that priority with to terrorism States fight. The changes laws anticounterfeiting approval 26, improve agencies each to reduce counterfeiting. With focus on counterfeiting S. to a day fighting the streets. Preparing the PRO IP Act to seek damages under current in civil under civil for for trademarks they be penalties under the PRO IP a look at their now to make rights are enforced. Laws 4 PRO IP Act looks U.S. borders as to target IP issues Current increased enforcement efforts against Counterfeiting Laws counterfeiting plan that is IP infringers. being launched in the European Continued from Page 4 Union, following approval by the ExpANdINg ThE fIghT gloBAlly European Union ministers on The PRO IP Act ambitiously looks September 26, 2008. The new EU The establishment of the IPEC beyond U.S. borders as well, to target anti-counterfeiting plan will improve position is the most controversial IP issues internationally. In addition to coordination and information provision remaining in the PRO the international enforcement efforts exchange between different agencies IP Act, and some commentators (from each of the 27 member have speculated that it could draw The PRO IP Act countries), in an effort to reduce large a veto from President Bush. The and small-scale counterfeiting. With administration does not object to ambitiously looks the increased focus on counterfeiting increasing the protection of IP rights and piracy in both the U.S. and the beyond U.S. borders as in the U.S.; instead, it objects to the EU, perhaps brand owners can look creation of a cabinet-level position on well, to target IP issues forward to a day when they are no the grounds that this would create longer required to spend substantial an “unnecessary bureaucracy.” resources fighting to keep counterfeit Given internationally. products off the streets. the overwhelming bi-partisan support enjoyed by the PRO-IP Act, it is prEpArINg for ThE assigned to the IPEC, the PRO IP Act pro Ip ACT thought that if the bill is vetoed by calls for the United States Attorney The PRO IP Act can provide President Bush, Congress will be able General to establish an Organized immediate benefits to brand owners, to override the veto. Crime Task Force for investigating including the ability to seek up to two Moreover, the PRO IP Act will and prosecuting international IP times the statutory damages that are provide more money and personnel crime syndicates. Congress states in available under current laws in civil to federal agencies for criminal IP the bill that “terrorists and organized actions. However, as under current enforcement, including more FBI crime utilize piracy, counterfeiting, laws, civil penalties for counterfeiting agents, more federal prosecutors, and and infringement to fund some of are only available for properly a $10,000,000 increase in funding their activities,” and declares that “the registered trademarks and copyrights. for both the Department of Justice Attorney General shall give priority If they want to be in a position to take and the FBI. In addition to enhanced to cases with a nexus to terrorism and advantage of the enhanced organized crime.” penalties efforts at the federal level, the PRO available under the PRO IP Act, IP IP Act also provides the Department The United States is not alone owners should take a look at their IP of Justice with $25 million a year in its fight. The changes in U.S. portfolio now to make sure that their to distribute in grants to state and counterfeiting laws are mirrored, most important rights are properly local law enforcement agencies for to some extent, by a new anti-registered and can be enforced. morrison & foerster llp — page 5 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page INTROD UCTION response to a request by either or another interested reexamine patent in light creates a “substantial new considered during the original are asserted a potentially highimpact allows a patentee patent based during the patentee more or less had to claim By contrast, a reissue allows the to not only as in claims well if application is filed two years the date of postissuance procedure, a claim amendment1 an undue hardship on an of the reexamined reissued infringer of the original claim “equitable” to where substantially changed during reissue.2 ABSolute Intervening Rights: Protection from past Liability And Damages infringer use a product that was made, used, before the grant of the as activity in the patent. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 252, during the claim, then intervening intervening been made not extend to processes methods. patent claims without liability for past damages. course, claims a infringed event, are generally measured the issue of the original incurred both and EQuitab le Intervening Rights: Protection from FUTure Liability And DamageS activity that occurs issued. infringers conduct. or sale of additional products by the reexamined patent purchased, made use, the of the reexamined claims. 35 U.S.C. §§ 252, 307(b). much broader absolute the are Rights: from Liability After Reexamination By Robert Saltzberg and Amy Beckman 7 Intervening Rights: Protection from Liability After Reexamination By Robert Saltzberg and Amy Beckman INTrodUCTIoN attempting to avoid infringement of that infringes a reexamined patent In response to a request by the original patent. To account for this claim necessarily infringed a claim either hardship, “absolute” and “equitable” a patentee or another of the original patent. In that event, interested intervening rights are available to damages are generally measured party, the USPTO will reexamine an issued patent in light of prior protect infringers from liability where from the issue date of the original claims are substantially changed during art that creates a “substantial patent, with the infringer liable for new reexamination or reissue.2 damages incurred both before and question of patentability” compared to issues considered during the after reexamination. original ABsolUTE INTErvENINg examination. Accused infringers rIghTs: proTECTIoN from EQUITABlE INTErvENINg in patent litigation are increasingly pAsT lIABIlITy ANd dAmAgEs rIghTs: proTECTIoN from requesting reexaminations of “Absolute” intervening rights provide fUTUrE lIABIlITy ANd asserted dAmAgEs patents, recognizing reexamination as a an accused infringer the right to use or sell a product that was made, used, relatively low-cost, potentially high-Absolute intervening rights do not apply or purchased before the grant of the impact adjunct to a lawsuit. A similar to infringing activity that occurs after reexamination certificate, as long as the reexamination certificate is issued. procedure, “reissue,” allows a patentee such activity did not infringe a claim of However, “equitable” intervening rights to apply for a reissued patent based the reexamined patent that was in the upon an error made during the original may protect alleged infringers from original patent. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 252, prosecution, including the liability for future infringing conduct. patentee claiming more or less that he or she had 307(b). If a claim is amended during Equitable intervening rights may a right to claim. reexamination and the amendment provide for the continued manufacture, substantively changed the claim, then use, or sale of additional products Reexamination may result in changes to absolute intervening rights apply. An covered by the reexamined patent the claims, but may not broaden claim absolute intervening right only protects when the defendant made, purchased, scope. By contrast, a reissue allows the products that have already been made or used identical products, or made patentee to not only narrow claims (as in when the reexamination certificate substantial preparations to make, use, reexamination), but to broaden claims is granted, and does not extend to or sell identical products, before the as well if the reissue application is filed infringing processes or methods. date of issuance of the reexamined within two years of the issue date of Thus, an infringer may sell off existing the original patent. Under either postclaims. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 252, inventory of a product that infringes 307(b). issuance procedure, a claim amendment1 Equitable intervening rights are the reexamined patent claims without may impose an undue hardship on an potentially much broader than absolute incurring liability for past damages. infringer of the reexamined or reissued intervening rights, but the former are claim where the infringer relied upon Of course, if the original claims survive discretionary. A court may provide for the scope of the original claim in reexamination intact, then a product equitable intervening rights to protect Continued on Page 7 morrison & foerster llp — page 6 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page before the grant of a is not clear. Equitable rights common where been broadened during In such cases, an infringer claim may not have were claim’s The inequity not arise claim in narrower claim than patent, as in 3 claims. Remedies Seattle Box,4 a case involving a patent, the Federal Circuit three basic are to remedy once the been raised. The court may (1) to the use items already in existence; under conditions that limit or geographical to continue in business court to that party to recoup court decision,5 factors in determining including p reparation made reissue; before reissue on counsel; existing orders or goods can manufactured to manufacture the infringing conversion; a long period of sales reissued for which cannot be assessed; has investment; been narrowed or by amendment. CONCLUSION may amend claims or add cover product. Even rights may provide at least protection infringer respect amended if equitable rights do not apply, absolute rights may be valuable, for past damages must matter disclosed With and an rights, experienced can consider potential be reexamination, and assess apply. ------------------1 This discussion amended reexamination also to new claims during than any original covers matter that patent again the exception for broadening reissues two years of a patent’s issuance). of the similarities between reexamination and reissue similar rules this article focuses reexamination, the law of reissue be referenced a narrowed infringer product patent reliance finding the relatively of may avoid such prior art. Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1984). v. Nydigger, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS ------------------Rights 6 Intervening Rights business under conditions that limit if reexamination does not result in the amount, type, or geographical invalidation of all infringed claims, Continued from Page 6 location of its activities; or (3) permit intervening rights may provide at least the infringer to continue in business some protection to an accused infringer unconditionally. with respect to added or amended claims. Moreover, even if investments made before the grant of equitable a Generally, the goal of a court is reexamination certificate, including the to intervening rights do not apply, absolute craft a remedy that would allow intervening rights may be valuable, continuation of infringing activity after the infringing party to recoup its especially for cutting off past damages such time. investment. As summarized in a on a patent that is nearing expiration. district court decision,5 various factors The application of equitable intervening rights to reexamination and narrowing may be considered in determining Any claim-narrowing must be whether equitable intervening rights are supported by subject matter disclosed reissues is not clear. Equitable rights appropriate, including whether: in the patent specification. With are more common in cases where this in mind and an understanding claims have been broadened during 1. Substantial preparation was reissue. In such cases, an made of intervening rights, experienced infringer before the of the reissued claim may not reissue; have patent counsel can consider 2. The infringer continued potential infringed the narrower original claim, amendments that might be made manufacturing before reissue leading to an unfair result if the on during reexamination, and advice of its patent assess infringer were held liable from the time counsel; whether and to what extent intervening 3. There were existing orders of the original claim’s issuance. or The rights may contracts; apply. same inequity arguably does not arise 4. Noninfringing goods can be when an amendment or added claim 1 This discussion of amended claims in reexamimanufactured from the inventory nation also generally applies to new claims results in a narrower claim than in the added during reexamination, which would be used to manufacture the infringing narrower in scope than any original claim. An original patent, as would be the case in product and the cost of amended or new claim is impermissibly broad conversion; reexamination.3 Thus, a court may be if it covers any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent (again 5. There was a long period of sales noting the exception for broadening reissues reluctant to grant equitable intervening filed within two years of a patent’s before the patent reissued for issuance). which rights for an activity that infringes 2 Because of the similarities between damages cannot be reexaminaassessed; tion and reissue proceedings, similar rules reexamined claims. apply. While this article focuses on rneaetixoanm, ti-he law of reissue will be referenced 6. The infringer has made profits Fashioning Equitable Remedies where that law is more well-defined. sufficient to cover its investment; 3 However, one can imagine that even a In Seattle Box,4 a case involving nara and rowed claim may impose an undue hardship on an infringer. For example, the infringer reissued patent, the Federal Circuit could have manufactured a product that 7. The claims have been narrowed or infringed the original patent in reliance upon outlined three basic options that are an invalidity opinion finding the relatively broadened by amendment. broader claims of the original patent to be available to fashion a remedy once the invalid over prior art; the narrowing during reexamination or reissue may avoid such doctrine of equitable intervening rights CoNClUsIoN parrito. r A patentee may amend claims or 4 add Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & has been raised. The court may (1) Packaging, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 827-28 confine the infringer to the use of those new, narrower claims to avoid prior (CFier.d 1. 984). 5 Thayer v. Nydigger, 1999 U.S. Dist. infringing items already in existence; art raised during reexamination, yet LEXIS 5886, at *34 (D. Or. Apr. 15, 1999). (2) permit the infringer to continue in still cover the accused product. Even morrison & foerster llp — page 7 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page Circuit 1 opinions of counsel are allegations infringement.Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Circuit to intent under 35 S.inducement and willfulness there is some well jurisprudence these issues. separate banc the last couple of years, Circuit has necessary DSU,3 specific knowledge acts found were deemed as evidence by the jury, which Federal did not directly discuss of counsel in contrast, the Seagate court held that “proof of willful enhanced requires at least a showing 5 And court reiterated its holding Knorr-Bremse6 that of counsel, an opinion, not an adverse inference respect in Seagate: we abandon the affirmative of due care, reemphasize of counsel.”7 a panel opinion Judge was Circuit of Seagate for the Broadcom alleged DSU’s “specific intent” is stricter” than Seagate’s recklessness” requirement Qualcomm also argued for intent panel disagreed: is no affirmative the court noted that the alleged inducer DSU had obtained non-infringement opinions as of the evidence considered by the jury, which a verdict of no inducement, the Federal did not directly discuss the role of opinion counsel evidence in DSU. of Counsel Ride Again: Federal Circuit Opinions Relevant to Intent for Induced in Broadcom v. Qualcomm 9 Opinions of Counsel Ride Again: Federal Circuit Finds Opinions Relevant to Intent for Induced Infringement in Broadcom v. Qualcomm By Elizabeth Richardson As the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Circuit did not directly discuss the role that there is no affirmative obligation in Seagate,1 opinions of counsel are of opinion of counsel evidence in DSU. to obtain opinion of counsel.”7 not required to fend off allegations In contrast, the Seagate court Broadcom, a panel opinion by of willful infringement.2 But in Judge subsequently held that “proof of willful Linn, was the first decision from the Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., infringement permitting enhanced Federal Circuit to explore the potential 543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the damages requires at least a showing implications of Seagate for inducement. Federal Circuit recently held that such of objective recklessness.”5 And the In the Broadcom case, opinions are relevant to intent to induce alleged infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Although the court noted that the alleged inducer Because inducement and willfulness in DSU had obtained non-infringement opinions as both require intent, there is some overlap in relevant evidence as well part of the evidence considered by the jury, which as jurisprudence between these two issues. But in separate en banc returned a verdict of no inducement, the Federal opinions in the last couple of years, the Circuit did not directly discuss the role of opinion Federal Circuit has adopted different quanta of intent necessary to establish of counsel evidence in DSU. inducement and willfulness. In DSU,3 the court required proof of “specific intent” to induce infringement, Seagate court reiterated its inducer Qualcomm argued that holding DSU ’s “specific intent” standard for including knowledge of the patent; from Knorr-Bremse6 that a failure mere knowledge of another’s inducement is “stricter” than Seagate’s acts to obtain an opinion of counsel, or “objective recklessness” requirement subsequently found to constitute invocation of the attorney-client direct infringement were deemed privilege or work-product protection for willfulness. Qualcomm also argued insufficient.4 Although the court to avoid disclosure of such an opinion, that evidence (like opinions of counsel) noted that the alleged inducer in does not create an adverse that is not relevant for willfulness inference cannot be relevant for intent to induce. DSU had obtained non-infringement with respect to willfulness. According The Broadcom panel opinions as part of the evidence to the Federal Circuit in Seagate: disagreed: considered by the jury, which returned “Because we abandon the affirmative “Although Qualcomm is correct a verdict of no inducement, the Federal duty of due care, we also reemphasize that there is no affirmative duty to Continued on Page 9 morrison & foerster llp — page 8 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page in v. 8 opinion regarding inference opinion have been 383 F.3d altered the state of mind Our banc holding in authority that that than that for willful of culpability infringement does theory.”8 this passage address and Seagate that establishes the parameters inducement. Discussing to intent the Broadcom opinion-of-counsel evidence, may reflect infringer ‘knew known’ that its actions another to directly evidence relevant to the second prong analysis.”9 T]he failure to procure such may opinionof-an as was in 471 F.3d at patentees failures to procure such circumstantial to infringe.”10 (though regarding invalidity chose privilege as unsurprisingly from 11 while jury an adverse inference to willful of an opinion Broadcom jury infringement gap in Thus, in world, opinions counsel shield those potential exposure allegations ------------------Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 Fed. 3d 1293 id. at 1305-06. 497 F.3d at 1371. 6 Knorr-Bremse Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana en 497 F.3d at 1371. 543 F.3d at 699. 10 Id. 11 See id. at 700. ------------------while a jury may draw an adverse as to willful from absence of an of counsel, Broadcom a may infer intent induce infringement the same gap in evidence. Infringement in Broadcom v. whether the accused infringer ‘knew Qualcomm advice as circumstantial evidence of or should have known’ that its actions intent to infringe.”10 Continued from Page 8 would cause another to directly Like the alleged inducer in DSU, infringe, we hold that such evidence Qualcomm obtained opinions of counsel (though regarding invalidity seek opinion of counsel regarding So while a jury may rather than non-infringement). Unlike infringement, and that it is improper not draw an adverse DSU, Qualcomm chose not to waive to allow an ‘adverse inference the attorney-client privilege as to those or evidentiary presumption that inference as to willful opinions, so they were unsurprisingly such an opinion would have been excluded from trial.11 So while a jury unfavorable,’ Knorr-Bremse, 383 F.3d infringement from may not draw an adverse at 1346, it is incorrect in arguing inference the absence of an as to willful infringement from the that Seagate altered the state of mind absence of an opinion of counsel, requirement for inducement. Our opinion of counsel, en banc holding in DSU remains following Broadcom a jury may infer the relevant authority on that point. following Broadcom a intent to induce infringement from the Despite Qualcomm’s assertion that same gap in the evidence. Thus, in the jury may infer intent the intent standard for inducement post-Seagate world, opinions of counsel is higher than that for willful to induce infringement remain an important shield for those infringement, a lack of culpability for with potential exposure to allegations willful infringement does not compel from the same gap in of induced infringement. a finding of non-infringement under the evidence. an inducement theory.”8 1 In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d (1F3e6d0. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Although this passage does not 2 Id. at 1371. fully address the rationale for the 3 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d remains relevant to the second 1293 prong (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc in relevant part). tension between DSU and Seagate of the intent 4 analysis.”9 See id. at identified by Qualcomm, the court 1305-06. 5 Seagate, 497 F.3d at unequivocally decreed that DSU, not “[T]he failure to procure such 1371. 6 Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Seagate, establishes the NutGzfmahbrHz evu. gDeana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, parameters an opinion may be probative of 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc). for assessing inducement. Discussing intent in this context. It would be 7 Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371. the admissibility of circumstantial manifestly unfair to allow opinion-8 Broadcom, 543 F.3d at 699. evidence to establish intent to induce of-counsel evidence to serve 9 Id. an 10 direct infringement, the Broadcom exculpatory function, as was the Id. 11 See id. at court concluded: case in DSU itself, see 471 F.3d 700. at “Because opinion-of-counsel evidence, 1307, and yet not permit patentees along with other factors, may reflect to identify failures to procure such morrison & foerster llp — page 9 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page 10 Merck KgA v. Integra Life Sciences Court harbor 271(studies, there is a relevant for submission of so-tool” this safe harbor. The Federal recent decision Proveris v. InnovaSystems, Inc. that sciences research infringe 2 production themselves. Common tools may include animals, particular DNA sequences, libraries DNAs, and software. Proveris, was infringer’s activity the 271(e)(1) safe at issue to drugs for unlike as a control in to obtain for tool deciding Proveris, Federal articulated a new, between and the Hatch-Waxman which the safe to the Federal the Hatch-First, FDA review from Second, because was competitors could only FDA approval once was addressing the first distortion. 1) sought to eliminate de patent extension Federal Circuit’s decision in Scientific Corp. InnovaSystems, suggests that life companies research tool need not that competitors infringe them impunity.2 Tool Patents: Light At The End Of The Tunnel? By Katherine Nolan-Stevaux, Ph.D. 11 Research Tool Patents: A Light At The End Of The Tunnel? By Katherine Nolan-Stevaux, Ph.D. In Merck KgA v. Integra Life Sciences I, In Proveris, the Federal Circuit was The Federal Circuit’s Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the faced with the question of whether safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) an accused infringer’s activity fell recent decision in (1) extended to the use of patented within the 271(e)(1) safe harbor where the patent at issue concerned Proveris Scientific Corp. compounds in pre-clinical studies, provided there is a reasonable belief a device to test drugs for FDA v. InnovaSystems, that the experiments would provide regulatory submissions. Thus, unlike information relevant for submission in Merck, where the patented item Inc. suggests that life to the F.D.A.1 However, the Court was used as a control in experiments declined to reach the question of submitted to the FDA, Innova sciences companies manufactured the patented item for whether infringement of so-called others to use to obtain data for FDA holding research tool “research tool” patents would also fall submissions. Innova’s product is a within this safe harbor. The Federal research tool as it was designed to patents need not Circuit’s recent decision in Proveris help analyze other therapeutics. Scientific Corp. v. InnovaSystems, Inc. fear that competitors suggests that life sciences companies In deciding Proveris, the Federal holding research tool patents need not Circuit articulated a new, more may infringe them fear that competitors may infringe stringent standard for determining them with impunity.2 when the safe harbor applies. The with impunity.2 court anchored this standard in the Research tools are reagents relationship between the Federal or methods that are useful in Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FDA pre-market approval, the conducting experiments but are not (“FDCA”) and the Hatch-Waxman effective patent term was lengthened diagnostic or therapeutic products Act in which the safe harbor is because competitors could only start or commercial scale production found. According to the Federal obtaining FDA approval once the processes themselves. Common Circuit, the Hatch-Waxman Act patent term was over. Section 156 of research tools may include cell lines, aimed to correct two distortions Hatch-Waxman provides for patent transgenic animals, particular DNA in the FDCA: First, FDA review term extensions due regulatory or protein sequences, libraries of of drugs precluded patentees from delays, addressing the first distortion. chemicals, DNAs, or proteins, or generating profits early in the Section 271(e)(1) sought to eliminate even databases and software. patent term. Second, because of “de facto” patent term extension by Continued on Page 11 morrison & foerster llp — page 10 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page 11 Tool 10 competitors’ related” harbor provision, key “invention” related.”3 The Supreme had already patented as used 1) were limited food for which FDA approval necessary—and relied on the so 4 This definition preserves FDCA. related,” the Federal relied on the Merck v. Circuit’s 2007 on remand the Supreme 5 The Court related” encompassed party reasonably compound work through a specific process result and used the research if successful. On Circuit activities were related to FDA submissions. Proveris, activities did for the safe harbor because not invention 1) and use of the patented device subject to FDA qualified not it was never for approval Circuit tool research patented sections 1) may still infringed are emphasis and caused review, the safe one safe exist. In is entitled reasonably submissions, the safe accused harbor this issue the Federal Circuit, companies should drug development. may be that the safe once ------------------Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. Scientific Corp. v. InnovaSystems, Inc., --F.3d --, No. WL shield for . . . solely uses related to the development and submission under a Federal regulates or sale of drugs & Co. v. Medtronic, 5 Merck KGaA v. Integra I, Ltd., 496 F.3d Cir. ------------------remand, the Federal concluded that activities reasonably related FDA submissions. Research Tool remand, the Federal Circuit concluded Patents On remand, the Federal that preclinical activities were Continued from Page 10 reasonably related to FDA submissions. Circuit concluded that In Proveris, Innova’s activities did not preclinical activities qualify for the safe harbor because the immunizing competitors’ activities patent was not a patented invention were reasonably related “reasonably related” to FDA under sections 156 and 271(e)(1) and to FDA submissions. submissions to enable competitors because use of the patented device to prepare for market entry upon was never subject to FDA approval expiry of the patent. and never qualified for patent term extension. Innova’s device was not For the safe harbor provision, the the patent is not eligible for term key a drug, medical device, or a food or extension, but the accused products terms are “patented invention” and “reasonably related.”3 The color additive. Further, it was never are submitted for FDA review, then Supreme submitted to the FDA for approval and the safe harbor should not apply Court had already determined that “patented inventions” as accordingly, the Federal Circuit found, either. Until this issue is actually used is not eligible for safe-harbor relief. before the Federal Circuit, life in Section 271(e)(1) were limited sciences companies should tread to drugs, medical devices, food For research tool patent holders, the additives, and color additives—i.e., carefully during drug development. key question is whether research substances for which FDA It may be a wiser approach to approval tool patents that aren’t “patented was necessary—and relied on license a competitor’s research tools the inventions” within sections 156 dual distortions of the FDCA in so than risk a finding that the safe and 271(e)(1) may still be infringed ruling.4 This definition preserves the by products that are subject to harbor did not apply to your drug relationship between the two sections in development activities once you’ve FDA approval and patent term rectifying the distortions of the FDCA. got a product ready to launch. extension. Because of the Federal For “reasonably related,” the Federal Circuit’s emphasis on how the two Circuit relied on the Merck v. Integra sections (156 and 271) work together 1 Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 5U4.S5. 193, 208 (2005). decision and the Federal Circuit’s 2007 to prevent distortions caused by 2 Proveris Scientific Corp. v. opinion on remand from the Supreme regulatory review, the safe bet IInnnc.o,v -a-SFy.3stde m--,s ,No. 2007-1428, 2008 WL 29671000 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5. 2008). Court.5 The Supreme Court held that would say that if one component 3 Section 271(e)(1) provides a shield for making, “reasonably related” encompassed is missing, then the safe harbor using, offering to sell, or selling in the U.S. “a patented invention . . . solely for activities where a party uses reasonably doesn’t exist. In order words, if the reasonably related to the development saunbdmission of information under a Federal law believed that a patented compound patent at issue is entitled to patent which regulates the manufacture, use, or soaf lderugs or veterinary biological products.” might work through a specific process term extension, but the use of the 4 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. to produce a specific result and used the patent is not reasonably related to 661, 672-674 (1990). compound in research that would be FDA submissions, then the safe 5 Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 496F.3d 1334, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007). submitted to the FDA, if successful. On harbor will not apply. Similarly, if morrison & foerster llp — page 11 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page 12 Awards and Acc olades Foerster’s and top rankings. recent Managing Intellectual Property rankings of IP groups, & Foerster was ranked as largest 249 lawyers 75% of their time GC California magazine honored a of categories inhouse counsel. We ranked #1 in of IP (Except The firm including in Business Litigation. practice’s peers Lawyers Directory. Best Lawyers in and Washington, D.an exhaustive in in anonymously their peers. The 14 Morrison & are: B arquist, Ciotti, San San Jacobs, Francisco Francisco Londen, San Francisco/Tokyo McElhinny, San Francisco Pooley, Palo Alto Wicker, San FROM THE DOCKET IP trial lawyers racked and defense key venues, as of Texas & Foerster represents Inc., its affiliate watched ITC Technology, Inc. On 1, after a full Law Judge issued an initial that Spansion did Act because patents were not infringed. victory is the first of that has been adverse to and the patents it has widely against the team was Alexander Hadjis Yohannan, with assistance Chip Terrill Michael Maas, and associates Matthew Vlissides, Robert Giles, Yan Wang, Paul Odidi, and Haliasos. a patent case and recover attorneys’ fees better. what Morrison Foerster Inc., infringement Property Practice News 13 Intellectual Property Practice News AwArds ANd ACColAdEs professional peers. The 14 Morrison & filed by Tessera Technology, Inc. On Foerster IP lawyers are: Morrison & Foerster’s Intellectual December 1, after a full trial on the Property practice continues to garner merits, the Administrative Law Judge • Charles Barquist, Los Angeles awards and top rankings. In the presiding over the case issued an initial • Peng Chen, San Diego most recent managing Intellectual determination that Spansion and • Thomas Ciotti, Palo Alto property rankings of IP groups, the other respondents did not violate • David Doyle, San Diego Morrison & Foerster was ranked as Section 337 of the Tariff Act because • Paul Goldstein, San Francisco having the fourth largest IP practice in Tessera’s patents were not • Michael Jacobs, San infringed. the U.S., with 249 lawyers devoting at Francisco This tremendous victory for the • Rachel Krevans, San least 75% of their time to IP work. Francisco respondents is the first decision that • Jack Londen, San Francisco/Tokyo we know of that has been adverse gC California magazine honored our • Harold McElhinny, San Francisco to Tessera and the patents it has IP practice in a number of categories • Gladys Monroy, Palo Alto widely licensed and asserted against in its inaugural annual survey of in-• Kate Murashige, San Diego the semiconductor industry. house counsel. We ranked #1 in the • James Pooley, Palo categories of IP Transactions (Except Alto The Washington, D.C. team was led • Rory Radding, New York Patent) and Licensing Transactions, by partners Alexander hadjis and • Mark Wicker, San Diego and #2 in IP Litigation (Except Kristen yohannan, with assistance Patent). The firm ranked highly in a from ThE doCKET from Of Counsel Chip Terrill number of other categories, including Our IP trial lawyers racked up and michael maas, and associates #2 rankings in Business Savvy and resounding plaintiff and defense matthew vlissides, robert giles, Bet-the-Company Litigation. wins for several technology clients in yan wang, paul Kletzly, Nabila recent months. Some of our biggest Isa-odidi, and Alex haliasos. Fourteen lawyers from the IP practice’s victories came in key venues, such U.S. offices were named by their as peers Walt Disney Wins Summary the Eastern District of Texas and the Judgment and Sanction Awards to the 2009 Best lawyers in America International Trade Commission. directory. Best Lawyers in America To win a patent case is great. To listings represent 79 specialties in all Respondents Beat Tessera’s Patent win and recover attorneys’ fees is 50 states and Washington, D.C., and Infringement Claims in the ITC even better. That’s what Morrison are compiled through an exhaustive Morrison & Foerster represents & Foerster did for Walt Disney Co. peer-review survey, in which thousands respondent Flash memory companies against Triune Star, Inc., which filed of the top lawyers in the United Spansion, Inc., and its affiliate in a patent infringement suit in 2007 States anonymously evaluate their a closely watched ITC patent suit against Disney and several other Continued on Page 13 morrison & foerster llp — page 12 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page 13 in the Central District The case late of granted finding “pass there was Triune’s plaintiff’s as “frivolous,” Mihm motion concluding filed a case partner Michael Jacobs Grant led team Million & Foerster secured victory Corporation a suit against Samsung of Texas infringed the patents $59.3 million to We damages willful. 2006, the suit asserted manufactured infringed plasma a press announcing Pioneer stated: significant decision recognition intellectual winning led by Harold McElhinny (San Francisco office), Hagberg (New York office), Monach (San Francisco assistance from Peter Stern (Tokyo office) (Tokyo office), Counsel Sherman (New York office), Kyle Mooney Foerster a victory for in a against 14 manufacturers and televisions Law Judge issued an Initial accused digital of Vizio, TPV, Brillian, asserted S. Law Judge has the full ITC products the United States, as well as and desist order to prevent sale infringing States. Foerster winning led by partner Karl Kramer office), assistance from Harold McElhinny (San office), Hector Gallegos office), Brian D.Louise Stoupe Moto Araki Nicole Smith, Mark Danis (Tokyo office), Anthony Press in Foerster Instruments, infringement it had brought Corporation Veeco with Property 12 Page14 Intellectual Property suit and awarded $59.3 million in Administrative Law Judge of the compensatory damages to Pioneer. We ITC issued an Initial Determination Continued from Page 12 are now seeking enhanced damages concluding that accused digital due to the jury’s conclusion that the televisions of Vizio, TPV, Amtran, infringement was willful. Filed in Proview, Syntax-Brillian, and other defendants in the Central District of the fall of 2006, the suit asserted that respondents infringe asserted claims Illinois. The case involved infrared plasma televisions manufactured by of one of Funai Electric’s U.S. patents. camera technology for cell phones. Samsung infringed two plasma display The Administrative Law Judge has In late November, Judge Michael technology patents held by Pioneer. recommended the full ITC grant Mihm of the Central District of a limited exclusion order barring In a press release announcing the Illinois granted summary judgment importation of the infringing products outcome of the trial, Pioneer stated: in favor of the defendants, finding into the United States, as well as a “This significant decision in favor Triune’s assertions did not “pass cease and desist order to prevent of Pioneer represents recognition of sale the red face test” and that there was or distribution of such infringing the strength of Pioneer’s intellectual no literal infringement of Triune’s products in the United States. property rights in the field of patent. Referring to the plaintiff ’s plasma displays.” The Morrison & Foerster winning case as “frivolous,” Judge Mihm also team was led by partner Karl Kramer granted the defendants’ motion for The winning team was led by harold (Palo Alto office), with assistance from Rule 11 sanctions, concluding that mcElhinny (San Francisco office), partners harold mcElhinny (San the plaintiff filed a case unwarranted Karen hagberg (New York office), Francisco office), hector gallegos in fact and law. and Andrew monach (San Francisco (Los Angeles office), Brian Busey office) with assistance from partners San Francisco partner michael Jacobs (Washington, D.C. office), louise peter stern (Tokyo office) and Taro and Of Counsel grant Kim led the stoupe (Tokyo office), moto Araki Isshiki (Tokyo office), Of Counsel winning team for Disney. (Tokyo office), Nicole smith, mark sherman Kahn (New York office), East Texas Jury Awards Pioneer danis (Tokyo office), and Anthony and associate Kyle mooney (New $60 Million press (Los Angeles office). York office). Morrison & Foerster secured Favorable Settlement Reached for a major victory in October for Victory for Funai in the ITC Veeco in Nanotechnology Patent Pioneer Corporation in a patent In November, Morrison & Foerster Dispute infringement suit against Samsung secured a victory for Funai Electric In August, Morrison & Foerster client Electronics Co., Ltd., and its affiliates. Co., Ltd., and its affiliate, Funai Veeco Instruments, Inc., announced After an eight-day trial, and only Corporation, Inc. (collectively it had settled the patent infringement four hours of deliberation, a jury “Funai”), in a patent infringement case it had brought against Asylum in the Eastern District of Texas case against 14 manufacturers and Research Corporation in 2003. Veeco decided three Samsung entities had importers of digital televisions is the world leader in atomic force willfully infringed the patents in and other related products. An and scanning probe microscopy, with Continued on Page14 morrison & foerster llp — page 13 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96& foerster llp — page 14 Property News 13 recent intellectual property updates. Because of its generality, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon specific legal advice on particular an address, add a subscriber, or comment on this newsletter, please write to: Michael Zwerin at Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, California mail & Foerster All Rights Reserved. & Foerster’s Practice & Foerster maintains one the intellectual in the world. The services, including and alternative dispute resolution, representation and licensing transactions. Morrison IP practice has the distinguishing ability of any complexity, in any venue, involving any technology. For more information visit www.of more than at university research/worldwide. this lawsuit, Veeco use, sale constituted infringement As part to drop a cross-of patents and a mutual sue right Asylum will Veeco license. chief officer to reached this favorable values has invested tens of millions and development for AFM has to bring AFM significant employees, and and we will in the future.” team was (Los Angeles Eric Diego office), Mehran Arjomand office), and Laurie Hane office). This settlement is a milestone our employees, and and we continue to protect valuable intellectual as necessary, the future.” Intellectual Property royalty to Veeco for the five-year term (San Diego office), mehran Arjomand Practice News of the cross license. (Los Angeles office), and laurie hane Continued from Page 13 (San Francisco John R. Peeler, chief executive office). officer of Veeco, commented, “We are pleased to have reached this favorable "This settlement is a an installed base of more than 8,000 settlement with Asylum that values our systems at university and research/technology and validates our patents. significant milestone nanotechnology centers worldwide. Veeco has invested tens of millions of In this lawsuit, Veeco alleged that dollars in intellectual property and for our employees, the manufacture, use, and sale of research and development for AFM customers and Asylum’s MFP-3D atomic force technology, and this investment has microscope constituted infringement helped us to bring the best AFM shareholders, and we of Veeco patents. As part of the terms products to the marketplace. This of the settlement, Veeco and Asylum settlement is a significant milestone will continue to protect agreed to drop all pending claims for our employees, customers and against each other and to enter a shareholders, and we will continue our valuable intellectual five-year, worldwide cross-license of to protect our valuable intellectual each company’s patents and a property, as necessary, in the future.” mutual property, as necessary, covenant not to sue on patents either The winning team was led by partner party has a right to assert. Asylum will Charles Barquist (Los Angeles office), in the future.” make a net payment plus an ongoing along with partners Eric Acker About Morrison & Foerster’s Intellectual Property Practice Morrison & Foerster maintains one of the largest and most active intellectual property practices in the world. The IP practice provides the full spectrum of IP services, including litigation and alternative dispute resolution, representation in patent and trademark prosecution, and business and licensing transactions. Morrison & Foerster’s IP practice has the distinguishing ability to efficiently and effectively handle issues of any complexity, in any venue, involving any technology. For more information about the IP practice, please visit www.mofo.com. This newsletter addresses recent intellectual property updates. Because of its generality, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be aucptoend without specific legal advice based on particular situations. If you wish to change an address, add a subscriber, or comment on this newsletter, please write to: Michael Zwerin aMtorrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, or e-mail mzwerin@mofo.com. ©2008 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All Rights Reserved. morrison & foerster llp — page 14 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=74db8cf6-2ec8-4d87-8f91-31a2c4bb7d96