DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International MARCH 2013 2013 SEMINAR SERIES lesles NouvellesNouvelles JOURNALJOURNAL OF OF THE THE LICENSING LICENSING EXECUTIVES EXECUTIVES SOCIETY SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL L L U.S. Trademark L Summer Patent Advanced Patent Practice Seminar Seminar & Licensing Seminar Volume XLVIII No. 1 March 2013 April 8 - 12, 2013 June 5 - 28, 2013 September 23 - October 4, 2013 A one week seminar which addresses all aspects This three and a half week seminar A two week seminar focusing on advanced of trademark practice before the United States covers all major areas of U.S. patent topics in U.S. patent law which includes LES NOUVELLES Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the law, beginning with an overview of the workshops and problem solving in order to courts, including the preparation of trademark U.S. patent system and moving on to illustrate the more advanced concepts with applications, practice before the Trademark Trial more complex subjects such as patent regard to prosecution, claim interpretation, and Advancing the Business of Intellectual Property Globally and Appeal Board, licensing, inter partes matters prosecution, infringement litigation, validity and infringement issues. Participants including opposition and cancellation and interference practice. Includes learn how to modify and determine the scope proceedings, and the enforcement of trademark practical problems and discussion of of a granted U.S. patent, as well as how to Recent Rulings On The Entire Market Value Rule And Impacts On rights in the federal and state courts. recent cases where applicable. address significant licensing issues. Patent Litigation And Valuation ERIC PHILLIPS AND DAVID BOAg — Page 1 Visit www.bskb.comfo r further seminar details. All seminars are held at BSKB’s offices in Metropolitan Washington DC. JOURNAL OF THE LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL The Exhaustion Theory Is Not Yet Exhausted: Part 2 8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East • Falls Church, VA 22042 USA p: +1-703-205-8000 • f: +1-703-205-8050 • e: [email protected] ERIK VERBRAEKEN — Page 7 © 2013 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Patent Licensing And Assignment With An Eye Toward Enforcement: Tips For University Patent Owners C HRISTOPHER LARUS, JOHN K. HARTING AND SHARON ROBERG-PEREz — Page 13 Cystic Fibrosis Patents: A Case Study of Successful Licensing MOLLIE A. MINEAR, CRISTINA KAPUSTIJ, KAELEEN BODEN, SUBHASHINI CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ROBERT COOK-DEEGan — Page 21 The Clear Decision In Uniloc Needs Clarification D REW E. VOTH AND KATHLeeN PETRICh — Page 31 Achieving Breakthrough Innovation And Adjacent Space Growth Through Collaborative Innovation Ge NE SLOWINSKI AND MATTHEW W. SAGal — Page 37 Technology Transfer’s Twenty Five Percent Rule A SHLEY J. STEVENS AND KOSUKE KATo — Page 44 Boom Or Bust - How To Structure Technology Transfer For Success BRIAN CUMMINGS AND ROSEMARIE TRUMAN — Page 52 Innovation For Growth: The Challenge Of Sustained Growth And The Increasingly Important Role Of Innovation Enablers N ITIN CHAUDHARY AND NeeRAJ KATHURIa — Page 60 If the Sky Were the Limit What Would You Do In Technology Transfer? G ARY KELLER, FIZIE HALeem, STEVEN FERGUSON, AL JORDAN AND CHERYL Cejka — Page 66 Decompose And Adjust Patent Sales Prices For Patent Portfolio Valuation JIAQINg “JACK” Lu — Page 71 Recent U.S. Court Decisions And Developments Affecting Licensing JOHN PAUL AND BRIAN KACEDOn — Page 80 We developed a notably www.e-mergeglobal.com reliable and easy procedure to undertake your IP recordals with the utmost diligence. JOURNAL OF THE LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL Discover more: Offensive www.dennemeyer.com/legal-services/ or Defensive Strategy? TM DENNEMEYER & ASSOCIATES We are the patent research company For a summary of LES participation in 2012, see the article in the March 2013 issue of LES Global News. Find it on our Patent Search Services Alert/Tracking Services website, www.lesi.org. Reach us White Space Analysis Claim Charting/Infringement Analysis USA: 1-888-247-1618 Portfolio Analysis Patent Licensing Support Services India: +91-44-2252 2223 Portfolio Management Patent Due Diligence Landscaping Studies Patent Drafting [email protected] Patent Litigation And Valuation Recent Rulings On The Entire Market Value Rule And Impacts On Patent Litigation And Valuation By Eric Phillips and David Boag he Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision in Cornell It is easy to see how the total royalties can be more University v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 609 F. Supp. sensitive to the royalty base than the royalty rate. T2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) ushered in substantial Assume that our imaging module makes up roughly changes to the computation of reasonable royalty 20 percent of the value of the system, yet the roy- damages in intellectual property litigation. Following alty rate is expected to fall between 2 percent and Cornell and several other cases, the courts increas- 4 percent. In that case, selection of different royalty ingly focus on whether or not the patented feature bases could have a 5x forms the basis of customer demand for a product impact on total royalties before allowing the entire product to be used as paid, while the royalty ■ Eric Phillips, AVA, CFFA, the royalty base. As a result, identifying the royalty rate only has a 2x impact VLF Consulting, Inc., base has now become just as important (or more on potential royalties. President, so) as identifying the royalty rate. Determining the This has not tradition- Chicago, IL , USA royalty base customarily consisted of asking which ally been a major area E-mail: ephillips@ products use the invention and what would be most of concern until the vlfconsulting.com common and feasible commercially. But now if the recent Entire Market patented features are not shown to be the basis of Value Rule (“EMVR”) ■ David Boag, customer demand, the royalty base may need to be decisions. Amster Rothstein & pared down to a portion of the entire product, even Cornell1 was the first Ebenstein LLP, if that smaller base is not independently saleable. of the recent cases Senior Counsel, This article presents a background of the issues, of- where the EMVR was New York, NY, USA fers a framework for evaluating the royalty base, and applied in order to re- identifies some outstanding areas of disagreement duce the royalty base E-mail: [email protected] amongst the courts. within an assembly. To help frame the question, let’s take the example of Here, Cornell sought reasonable royalty damages on a patent covering digital imaging technology used for infringing computer servers, although the patented eye exams. The system consists of three components: technology related only to instruction issuance within the eye imaging module, computer, and automated a computer processor (a component of the server). examination chair. In a non-litigation context, an The Federal Circuit ruled that the Entire Market Value expert may seek to determine a reasonable royalty Rule must be met in order to use the entire apparatus to compensate for the use of the invention, in the (here, the server) as the royalty base. This requires context of licensing negotiations or patent valuation. three conditions:2 Alternatively, a litigation expert may seek to deter- 1. [T]he infringing components must be the mine a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284, which basis for customer demand for the entire provides that a prevailing plaintiff in a patent action machine including the parts beyond the shall be awarded damages to compensate for the claimed invention,…;3 infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. This reasonable royalty is often expressed as a 1. Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 609 F. Supp. 2d 279 reasonable royalty rate multiplied by a royalty base (or (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (Rader by designation). alternatively as a lump sum). Both the valuation and 2. Further, the court noted that “it is not enough that the litigation expert are then faced with the question of infringing and non-infringing parts are sold together for mere which components to use as the royalty base. Perhaps business advantage.” Id. at 286-287. the entire system (imaging module, computer, and 3. The Court tweaked this requirement in its 2011 Uniloc case, stating that the EMVR can be used only “where the patented chair) should be included, or at the other extreme, feature creates the ‘basis for customer demand’ or ‘substantially only a portion of the value of the imaging module create[s] the value of the component parts.’” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. should be included. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011). March 2013 1 Patent Litigation And Valuation 2. [T]he individual infringing and non- system), then the infringing components must be sold entire system may together so that they constitute a functional be properly used Patent claims provide unit or are parts of a complete machine or as the royalty base. a starting point, but single assembly of parts,…; and On the other do not always dictate 3. [T]he individual infringing and non- hand, if the claims what to include in infringing components must be analogous of our patent do the royalty base. to a single functioning unit . include the com- (Internal citations omitted). puter and chair, The court then rejected the use of the server as yet the patented the royalty base, finding that the patented invention technology does not create the demand for the sys- did not drive demand for the server. tem, then things get murky. The plaintiff’s argument here (for a larger royalty base) is that (a) the entire Cornell and other EMVR cases leave us with four apparatus is in fact the patented device, and (b) the key questions to consider when determining a royalty EMVR criteria only applies where unpatented prod- base: (1) what is covered by the patent, (2) what is ucts are combined with patented products.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journal of the Licensing Executives Society
    DECEMBER 2016 LES NOUVELLESDECEMBER 2016 lleess NNoouvuveelllleess Translations JOURNAL OF THE LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL Patent Mapping Strategies Patent MappingCopyright IP Legal advice Renewal Management Descriptions Domain Names Domain Names Attorneys Flat fee prosecution Descriptions Patent Annuities IP Contracts Flat fee prosecution Copyright Domain Names RenewalEP Management - Validation BrandsIP Contracts IP Due Diligence Software Solutions Filings Copyright PCT - Nationalizations PatentPCT - Nationalizations Seminars IP Due Diligence Domain Names Trademark Descriptions Descriptions Filings Mapping Descriptions Strategies Renewals Filings Patent Mapping Copyright Patent Mapping Prior artDescriptions searches Volume LI No. 4 Designs Copyright IP Legal advice December 2016 Brands Software Solutions IP Contracts Trademarks Docketing EP - Validation DIAMS iQ DIAMS iQPatents Trademarks IP Contracts Trademarks Seminars Software EP - Validation Copyright Portfolio Analysis Recordal ServicesDesigns Trademarks Patent Mapping Portfolio Analysis Portfolio Analysis PCT - Nationalizations DIAMS iQ Patents Descriptions Flat fee prosecution Patent Mapping Software Solutions Solutions artPrior searches Flat fee prosecution Strategies Designs TranslationsDomain NamesMonetization Patent Filings Mapping IP Legal advice Copyright Translations Copyright Brands Trademarks Seminars Brands Filings Contracts Designs Designs Domains Copyright StrategiesTrademarks Prior art searches IP Legal advice Descriptions Filings Domain Names Brands
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance
    ACC’s 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Tuesday, October 21 11:00 am-12:30 pm 509 Metrics Mania: Leveraging Law Department Metrics to Manage Costs and Improve Performance Arvie J. Anderson Patent Counsel and Six Sigma Black Belt Eli Lilly & Company Eric Chung Director of Corporate Legal Affairs Atmel Corporation Mary B. Clark Vice President Law and Deputy General Counsel LexisNexis Miguel R. Rivera Sr. Associate General Counsel Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated This material is protected by copyright. Copyright © 2008 various authors and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Materials may not be reproduced without the consent of ACC. Reprint permission requests should be directed to ACC’s Legal Resources Department at ACC: 202/293-4103, ext. 338; [email protected] ACC's 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Prior to joining LexisNexis, Ms. Clark practiced law as corporate counsel and in private Faculty Biographies litigation practice. Arvie Anderson Ms. Clark has shared her expertise at numerous conferences hosted by professional organizations such as the American Bar Association, LegalTech, and the Association of Arvie Anderson is a patent attorney at Eli Lilly and Company in Indianapolis. For the Corporate Counsel, and was selected by her peers as a Northern California Super Lawyer past two years, Mr. Anderson has been a Six Sigma Black Belt for the law division. He is in business law. responsible for legal process improvement projects across the department in areas such as budgeting, IT utilization, patent procurement, and litigation cost management. Beginning Ms. Clark is a graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software And
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 91 Issue 1 Congressional Dysfunction and Executive Lawmaking During the Obama Article 14 Administration 1-29-2016 Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software and Electronics: An Argument for Alienability of Patent Licenses to Licensees' Business Successors Anna A. Onley IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Anna A. Onley, Limiting Downstream Effects of Patent Licensing Activity in Software and Electronics: An Argument for Alienability of Patent Licenses to Licensees' Business Successors, 91 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 361 (2016). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol91/iss1/14 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 37288-ckt_91-1 Sheet No. 188 Side A 12/28/2015 14:43:02 13 ONLEY FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 12/24/2015 9:25 PM LIMITING DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF PATENT LICENSING ACTIVITY IN SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONICS: AN ARGUMENT FOR ALIENABILITY OF PATENT LICENSES TO LICENSEES’ BUSINESS SUCCESSORS ANNA A. ONLEY* Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 362 THE PROBLEM ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drafting Patent License Agreements
    Detailed Contents Preface ............................................................................................ v Preface to the First Edition ........................................................... vii Summary Contents ........................................................................ ix Contents of Forms .......................................................................... xxiii 1 Some Premises and Commentary ................................... 1 1.00 Orientation and a Disclaimer of Legal Completeness ............................................................... 1 1.01 License Agreements as a Separate Topic .................. 2 1.02 A Pessimistic Prognosis Concerning Certainty of Draftsmanship ......................................................... 4 A. The Semantic Problem .......................................... 4 B. Uncertainty Through Human Frailty .................. 6 1. Ambiguity ......................................................... 6 2. Vagueness ......................................................... 8 3. Misplaced Modifier .......................................... 10 1.03 Contra Preferentum .................................................... 12 2 Legal Principles ................................................................... 15 2.01 Evaluating the Legal Nature of the Subject Matter .......................................................................... 15 A. The Scope of a Patent ........................................... 16 B. The Scope of Unpatented Technology .................
    [Show full text]
  • Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– an Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel
    By in-house counsel, for in-house counsel.SM InfoPAKSM Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Third Edition Sponsored by: Association of Corporate Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 tel 202.293.4103, fax 202.293.4701 www.acc.com 2 Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets: An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Intellectual Property Primer: Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and Trade Secrets– An Introduction to Intellectual Property for In-House Counsel Third Edition July 2008 Provided by the Association of Corporate Counsel 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. 202.293.4103 Fax 202.293.4701 www.acc.com This InfoPAKSM is designed to provide corporate counsel with a general overview of intellectual property and to suggest useful practices for the handling of intellectual property issues in the corporate setting. This information should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts, or representative of the views of ACC or any of its lawyers, unless so stated. This is not intended as a definitive statement on the subject but a tool, providing practical informa- tion for the reader. We hope that you find this material useful. Thank you for contacting the Association of Corporate Counsel. This material was prepared, compiled, and updated by the Intellectual Property attorneys of Dickstein Shapiro LLP (www.dicksteinshapiro.com), edited by Kenneth W. Brothers (First, Sec- ond, and Third Editions) and Megan Woodworth (Third Edition), at the direction of the Asso- ciation of Corporate Counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Patents and the Public Domain12
    E CDIP/4/3 REV./STUDY/INF/2 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 2011 STUDY ON PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN12 1 The views expressed in the study are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the WIPO Secretariat or its Member States. 2 The Patents and the Public Domain part of the study was prepared by Mr. Jeremy Phillips, Professorial Fellow, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London, London, United Kingdom. The Development Dimension: National Practices and Experiences part was prepared by: A. Mr. McLean Sibanda, Chief Executive Officer, The Innovation Hub, Pretoria, South Africa; B. Mr. Hossam El Saghir, Professor of Commercial Law and General Director of the, Regional Institute for Intellectual Property, Helwan University, and Attorney at Law, Cairo, Egypt; C. Mr. Ernesto Rengifo García, Professor, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia; D. Mrs. Olena Pavlina Orlyuk, Director, Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property, Kyiv, Ukraine; and E. Mr. Calab Gabriel, Senior Partner, K&S Partners, Intellectual Property Attorneys, Gurgaon, National Capital Region, India. CDIP/4/3 Rev./STUDY/INF/2. page i CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 2 I. PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 7 2. The notion of “public domain” in relation to the patent system.................................
    [Show full text]