ITC gets the thumbs-up

The December 2009/January 2010 issue of Patent World, published ten times a year by Informa, carries an article, "International Trade Commission exclusion orders" by two Kilpatrick Stockton attorneys, Chris Murphy (Washington DC) and Wilson White (Atlanta). The authors review ITC's practice regarding orders made under section 337 of the Tariff Act 1930 ewhich empowers the ITC to exclude articles from import if they are found to infringe a valid US intellectual property right by either a general exclusion order or a limited exclusion order.

The article concludes that the ITC "provides a forum for fast and efficient resolution of intellectual property disputes and enjoys the reputation for providing remedies tailored to protect both the rights of IP owners and the public interest in unrestricted trade" even though recent developments in the Kyocera and Tessera cases have probably diminished its appeal as a forum.

Patent World's home page can be visited here. PatLit team member Michael Burdon is on the journal's editorial board.

Court reform: nothing to avail those in the middle?

Writing in the November 2009 issue of Informa's ten-times-a-year Patent World, PatLit team member Michael Burdon pens the journal's 'In Closing' back page feature. The title, "Court reform is of critical importance", reviews patent litigation reform proposals both in Europe and within England and Wales over the past year, concluding:

"I do however fear that this system still caters only for those at the extremes -- those who are litigating patents which have considerable commercial importance, so-called 'big ticket' litigation, at the one end and those involved in more modest low-value disputes at the other. I believe that there is a significant number of companies who are caught in the middle and cannot avail themselves of either alternative".

You can read Michael's article here.

Latest Patent World

The newly-published July-August 2009 issue of Patent World carries two features on preliminary injunctive relief that will interest patent litigators. The first, "Tyre case clarifies injunction test", is a review by Jonathan Muenkel (Jones Day, US) of the decision of the CAFC last month in Titan Tire Corporation v Case New Holland, Inc, which touches on the weight given to the likelihood of the defendant's invalidity defence succeeding at trial. The second, "Interim measures in French patent disputes" by the Linklaters pairing of Marianne Schaffner and Lorraine Sautter, reflects rather the opposite trend, since it is subtitled "Validity takes a back seat". This article discusses the ruling this March in SAS Laboratories Negma/SAS Biogaran.

You can see the detailed contents of this issue on PW's home page here.

Patent litigation reform in the UK: a response to the Burdon proposals

The April 2009 issue of Patent World (Informa, published ten times a year), carries this article by Taylor Wessing litigators Gareth Morgan and Richard Price, "Providing UK patent litigants with a real alternative". This article calls for a radical overhaul of the Patents County Court and also responds in detail to some of the suggestions made by Michael Burdon in his December 2008 article (here).

This exchange of views is unlikely to be the end of the discussion as to what form a revised patent litigation forum might take. Further developments are keenly awaited.

PatLit would like to thank Patent World for kindly agreeing to make these articles available to its readers.

This month's Patent World

The March 2009 issue of Patent World has now been published. Readers of this blog may like to note that, among the journal's contents, there are several items of interest to US patent litigators and their clients (as well as those who scan American developments in search of ways of making them relevant in other jurisdictions). These include

* "Halting the plague: peaks and troughs in equitable conduct defences", by the three-man team of Joseph O'Malley Jr, Bruce Wexler and Jason T. Christiansen (from US law firm Paul, Hastings, Janovsky & Walker LLP),

* "Disputed claim constructions" by Kilpatrick Stockton's Geoffrey Gavin and Matthew Warenzak", which looks at the impact of suggested reforms providing for direct interlocutory appeals of claim construction decisions where the district court so certifies.

Full details of Patent World are available here.

Recent publications

The December 2008/January 2009 issue of Patent World features several items of interest to the patent litigator. These include

* "Patent Troll Litigation", a robust account by Stephen S. Korniczky (Hastings, Janofsky & Walker) of the tactics that defendants can adopt in infringement actions brought against them by non-trading entities.

*"Simplifying the System", in which PW editorial board member Michael Burdon (Olswang) further articulates the 'Burdon Plan' for accelerating UK patent litigation while bringing down the cost.

For further details of Patent World click here.



Some patents are never litigated, because they are simply too silly. A collection of these, together with some pointed comments by the author Daniel Wright, can be found in Patently Silly -- published by Carlton Books (web details here). The author's Patently Silly weblog provides more of the same, and is ideal reading material for those fascinated by personal hygiene. This little book slips neatly into a typical Christmas stocking and provides some mild amusement for those within the profession whose own examples of silliness probably come from the behaviour of patent litigants as much as from the subject matter of the granted patent.

Latest Patent World

The November 2008 issue of Patent World, published ten times a year by Informa, carries several items of interest to readers of this blog. These include "Keeping Costs Low: how to hedge the risk of expensive litigation" by James Delany. James is a director of specialist brokers TheJudge -- the largest independent litigation risk transfer broker in the UK. His article concludes:

"If a client has a good case there is a good chance that client can offset anywhere from 50-100% of the cost risk, typically at no upfront cost and at no cost if the case loses".

But what happens, it may be asked, where both sides can establish a good case?