WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 7 |

«Patent Trolls Beware: Ethics and Consequences in Filing Patent Suits Without a Sufficient Pre-Filing Investigation by Sid Leach Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Patent Trolls Beware: Ethics and Consequences in Filing Patent

Suits Without a Sufficient Pre-Filing Investigation

by Sid Leach

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

In October 2006, a jury returned a verdict in the case of Verve LLC v. Hypercom

Corp., awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against a lawyer and his

law firm for abuse of process and malicious prosecution based upon patent infringement

actions that were filed without an adequate pre-filing investigation. That same month, in the case of Eon-Net, L.P. v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., an attorney and his law firm were sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation before filing a patent infringement action. On February 6, 2007, an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission entered an order imposing sanctions on a lawyer and his law firm based, in part, upon the failure to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation. These recent decisions underscore the importance of conducting an adequate pre-filing investigation before initiating patent infringement litigation. The failure to discharge this obligation can expose a lawyer and his firm to sanctions and potential liability for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.

This paper will discuss sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §1927, 35 U.S.C. §285, and a court’s inherent power, based upon the failure to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation in a patent case. The paper will also cover potential liability for claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.

I. RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Rule 11 is of fundamental importance, because it provides a principal basis for sanctions relating to inadequate pre-filing investigations, serves as a guide star in the exercise of a court’s inherent power, and is used as the standard for evaluating the issue of probable cause in a malicious prosecution claim.

Under Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P., every paper filed with the court must be signed. The signature is a certification that the pleading complies with the requirements of the rule.

By signing a pleading, an attorney certifies, inter alia, that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the allegations and factual contentions in the pleading have evidentiary support. Rule 11(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. The signer also certifies that the pleading is not being filed for any improper purpose. Id.

Rule 11 is intended to protect the integrity of the legal system. Pope v. Federal Express Corp., 138 F.R.D. 684, 691 (W.D. Mo. 1991); Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1426 (1st Cir. 1992) (“[C]ourts cannot function if lawyers and litigants are not forthright.”). Rule 11 is intended to ensure that any papers filed with the court are wellgrounded in fact, and not interposed for any improper purpose. Cooter & Gell v.

Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 392 (1990). The rule is principally designed to prevent baseless filings, id., and to deter misrepresentations in pleadings, Anderson v. County of Montgomery, 111 F.3d 494, 502 (7th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Dewalt v.

Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000).

A. Evidentiary Support for Factual Contentions Prior to signing a complaint, a litigant must fulfill the affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (1991). “Whether or not this duty has been breached depends on the objective reasonableness of the litigant’s conduct under the totality of the circumstances.” Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1425 (1st Cir.

1992). Although Rule 11 allows allegations to be made, if specifically so identified, as likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, this is not a license to make claims without any factual basis. Geisinger Medical Center v. Gough, 160 F.R.D. 467, 469 (M.D. Pa. 1994).

In a patent infringement case, the patentee must conduct a reasonable investigation to determine whether the products accused of infringement actually infringe the asserted patent. Antonious v Spalding & Evenflo Co., 275 F3d 1066, 1074 (Fed Cir 2002) (“[A]n attorney violates Rule 11(b)(3) when an objectively reasonable attorney would not believe, based on some actual evidence uncovered during the prefiling investigation, that each claim limitation reads on the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.”). A patentee is required to demonstrate that an adequate pre-filing investigation was performed whenever it is challenged. View Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In bringing a claim of infringement, the patent holder, if challenged, must be prepared to demonstrate to both the court and the alleged infringer exactly why it believed before filing the claim that it had a reasonable chance of proving infringement.”).

In a patent case, Rule 11 “require[s], at a minimum, that an attorney interpret the asserted patent claims and compare the accused device with those claims before filing a claim alleging infringement.” Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co., 360 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The attorney must have a reasonable basis for finding infringement of at least one claim of the patent by the accused device. View Engineering Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 985-986 (Fed. Cir. 2000).





The claim interpretation should follow the standard canons of claim construction, comport with the plain meaning of the claim language, be reasonably supported by the intrinsic record, and not be inconsistent with the patent’s written description or prosecution history. See Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co., 360 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In order to perform a proper claim construction analysis, the plaintiff must obtain a copy of the publicly available Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) file for the patent application that issued as the asserted patent. The importance of the PTO application file is two-fold. Changes made during prosecution of a patent application by amendment, or in an argument, can restrict the scope that will be given to a patent and can legally foreclose infringement claims against certain types of products. Festo Corp. v.

Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 739-40 (2002). Secondly, an argument made to the patent examiner in order to convince the examiner to allow the application to issue as a patent that ascribes particular significance to a term in a patent will be definitive for purposes of patent claim construction. Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v.

Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d 1143, 1148-49 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

An attorney cannot simply rely upon his client’s pre-filing investigation and patent claim analysis. The attorney must perform his or her own independent claim analysis of the asserted patent. S. Bravo Systems, Inc. v. Containment Tech. Corp., 96 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Antonious v Spalding & Evenflo Co., 275 F3d 1066, 1072 (Fed Cir 2002).

In order to demonstrate that an adequate pre-filing investigation was conducted, an attorney may prepare claim charts comparing the elements of the patent claims to the available information describing the structure, function and operation of the accused products. Network Caching Technology, LLC v. Novell, Inc., No C-01-2079-VRW, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26098, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002) (“FRCP 11 requires that a plaintiff compare an accused product to its patents on a claim by claim, element by element basis...”.). However, there is clearly no requirement that claim charts be prepared. Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co., 360 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] claim chart is not a requirement of a pre-filing infringement analysis, as the owner, inventor, and/or drafter of a patent ought to have a clear idea of what the patent covers without the formality of a claim chart.”). If claim charts are prepared and relied upon as evidence of a pre-filing investigation, the charts need to provide sufficient information to objectively show a good faith basis for concluding that the accused products infringe at least one claim of each asserted patent. View Engineering Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Rule 11... [requires], at a bare minimum, [to] apply the claims of each and every patent that is being brought into the lawsuit to an accused device and conclude that there is a reasonable basis for a finding of infringement of at least one claim of each patent so asserted.”).

The information set forth in the claim charts should be sufficient to show that a reasonable effort was made to ascertain evidentiary support demonstrating that the accused products will meet the key limitations of the patent claims. Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 784 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[P]rior to the filing of the suit, neither Judin or his counsel had made a reasonable effort to ascertain whether the accused devices satisfied the two key claim limitations”); Antonious v Spalding & Evenflo Co., 275 F3d 1066, 1074 (Fed Cir 2002) (“[C]ounsel must make a reasonable effort to determine whether the accused device satisfies each of the claim limitations.”). Conclusory claim charts that merely mimic the language of the patent claims, without recitation of a sufficient evidentiary basis for the conclusions, are insufficient. Network Caching Technology, LLC v. Novell, Inc., No C-01-2079-VRW, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26098, at *16-18 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002). In the case of Eon-Net, P.L. v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., No. C05-2129MJP, slip op. (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2006), the patentee argued that it examined information on the accused infringer’s web site, construed the claims of the patent, compared the asserted claims to the information available on the web site, and prepared a claim chart. Id., slip op., at 6. The court found the claim charts insufficient to establish under an objectively reasonable standard that an adequate pre-filing

investigation was performed. Id., slip op., at 11-15. In the Eon-Net case, the court said:

To the extent Eon-Net went through the motions of a claim construction exercise, it recklessly defined terms to suit its purpose in spite of the specification’s language. … Eon-Net’s construction in spite of the evidence is an abuse of the protections afforded by the patent system and is the type of misconduct for which Rule 11 provides sanctions.

Id., slip op., at 14-15.

Rule 11 requires an investigation that is “reasonable under the circumstances.” S.A. Auto Lube, Inc. v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., 842 F.2d 946, 948 (7th Cir. 1988);

In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1182 (9th Cir. 1986). The Federal Circuit has not imposed an absolute requirement that a patentee must obtain or test a sample of the accused product prior to filing suit. The amount of investigation required in a particular case depends on both the time available to investigate and the probability that more investigation will turn up important evidence. S.A. Auto Lube, Inc. v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., 842 F.2d at 948. However, if samples of the accused product are readily available, the case law suggests that a patentee should obtain samples and test them for infringement. Network Caching Technology, LLC v. Novell, Inc., No C-01VRW, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26098, at *13-16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002) (reverse engineering, or its equivalent, of the defendant’s products is required); Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Convergys Corp., No. 1:04-cv-0073-LJM-WTL, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 846, at *13-14 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2006) (“[T]he Court finds that Centillion’s factual inquiry was objectively unreasonable because Centillion, nor its lawyers, never actually tested the allegedly infringing products to see if they met each of the ‘270 patent’s limitations.”). At least one court has said that Rule 11 requires that the accused infringing products be fully investigated prior to filing suit. Eon-Net, P.L. v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., No. C05-2129MJP, slip op., at 9 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2006)(“A plaintiff in a patent infringement suit has an obligation to fully investigate accused products before filing suit.”). In one case, the Federal Circuit said that several hundred thousand dollars would not be an unreasonable investigation expense to ascertain that the infringement allegations have evidentiary support. View Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 985 & n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

In the case of Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the plaintiff patentee failed to perform an adequate pre-filing investigation. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that the trial court abused its discretion by not sanctioning Judin. Id. at 781.

Judin filed a complaint alleging patent infringement by U.S. Postal Service bar code scanners. Id. The patentee went to an industry exhibition, was familiar with trade publications, technical specifications, and commercial literature, and observed the accused product from a distance but did not attempt to obtain a sample of the accused product, and did not test the accused product. The Federal Circuit summarized the

patentee’s pre-filing investigation as follows:

Sometime prior to the filing of the complaint, Judin observed bar code scanners in use at a post office. He also attended a scanning industry exhibition and was familiar with trade publications, technical specifications, and commercial literature some of which suggested that Government agencies were purchasing bar code scanners. Judin did not ask the Postal Service for a sample of the device or otherwise try to obtain one.

Judin presented his observations to attorney Van Der Wall, who also observed from a distance the accused devices in use in a post office, but otherwise conducted no investigation. Neither Van Der Wall nor Judin contacted the Postal Service, or any manufacturer, in order to gain access to the accused devices or to inquire about their operation. Van Der Wall relied on Judin with respect to the factual basis of the complaint, believing that reliance on Judin was reasonable due to Judin’s experience, his credentials, and his time in industry. Van Der Wall stated that he examined one of the asserted patent claims and “saw no problem with it.” Id. at 781-82.



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 7 |


Similar works:

«The Romance of the Swag Lawson, Henry (1867-1922) A digital text sponsored by Australian Literature Electronic Gateway University of Sydney Library Sydney http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/ozlit © University of Sydney Library. The texts and Images are not to be used for commercial purposes without permission Source Text: Prepared from the print edition published by Angus and Robertson, Sydney 1924 All quotation marks are retained as data. First Published: 1907 Languages: Australian Etexts...»

«The Architecture of Innovation The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Lawrence Lessig, The Architecture of Innovation, 51 Duke L. J. Citation 1783 (2002). http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol51/iss6/2/ Published Version November 13, 2016 7:57:03 PM EST Accessed http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12911353 Citable Link This article was downloaded from Harvard University's DASH Terms of Use repository,...»

«Refugee Law Project Working Paper No. 13 CHILD PROTECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF DISPLACEMENT: NTOROKO COUNTY, BUNDIBUGYO DISTRICT DECEMBER 2004 The Refugee Law Project (RLP) was established in November 1999 with the aim of protecting and promoting the rights of forced migrants in Uganda. The RLP operates as an autonomous project within the Faculty of Law of Makerere University, and focuses on three main areas: legal assistance, training, and research and advocacy. The Refugee Law Project works...»

«William & Mary Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 1 Article 3 The Trouble with the Adversary System in a Postmodern, Multicultural World Carrie Menkel-Meadow cmeadow@law.uci.edu Repository Citation Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Trouble with the Adversary System in a Postmodern, Multicultural World, 38 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 5 (1996), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol38/iss1/3 Copyright c 1996 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository....»

«236 | Amadeus IT Holding, S.A. and Subsidiaries Directors’ Report for the year ended December 31, 2011 Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 2011 (ICFR) Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 2011 (ICFR) This Report is part of the Annual Corporate Governance Report as required by article 61 bis of the Spanish Securities Market Act (Law 24/1988, of July 28, as amended) incorporated by the issuance of the Law 2/2011, of March 4, and it will be filed with the Spanish Stock Exchange...»

«what i learned Narnia in Douglas Wilson canonpress Moscow, Idaho Published by Canon Press P.O. Box 8729, Moscow, ID 83843 800–488–2034 | www.canonpress.com Douglas Wilson, What I Learned in Narnia Copyright © 2010 by Douglas Wilson Scripture quotations are from the Authorized Version unless otherwise noted. Quotations from The Chronicles of Narnia are taken from the 1994 HarperCollins editions. Cover and interior design by Laura Storm. Cover photography by ANP. Printed in the United States...»

«EOD 09/30/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION IN RE: § § EDWARD MANDEL, § Case No. 10-40219 § (Chapter 11) Debtor. § FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING DEBTOR’S OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF STEVEN THRASHER, JASON COLEMAN, AND WHITE NILE SOFTWARE, INC. This case is before the Court on the objections of the debtor, Edward Mandel, to the claims of White Nile Software, Inc. (“White Nile”), Steven Thrasher, on his own...»

«Unofficial Translation MACHINERY REGISTRATION ACT, B.E. 2514 (1971)1 BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 14th Day of April B.E. 2514 (A.D. 1971) Being the 26th Year of the Present Reign His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased to proclaim that: Whereas it is expedient to have a law on machinery registration in order that machinery can be mortgageable movable property and subject to other juristic acts under the Civil and Commercial Code; Be it, therefore, enacted by the King,...»

«FWC Division of Law Enforcement Weekly Report September 12-September 18, 2014 This report represents some events the FWC handled over the past week; however, it does not include all actions taken by the Division of Law Enforcement. Patrol, Protect, Preserve NORTHWEST REGION BAY COUNTY Officers Gore and Basford were checking local fishing areas when they checked two subjects in a vehicle who appeared nervous and were evasive with responses after being approached by the officers. A consent to...»

«The Vetting and Barring Scheme Frequently Asked Questions Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) 2010 Roadshow Contents Introduction Background and basics Q1. What is the Vetting and Barring Scheme and why was it set up? Q2. Which government departments are involved with the Scheme? Q3. What legal framework supports the VBS? Q4. What has changed on 12 October 2009? Q5. What will change in July 2010? Q6. What is the ISA? Q7. What does the ISA do? Q8. What improvements will the VBS and the ISA deliver?...»

«Popular dispute resolution mechanisms in Ethiopia: Trends, opportunities, challenges and prospects Gebreyesus Teklu Bahta* Abstract This article finds that high-ranking officials within the judiciary and executive, heads of some organisations, and certain researchers have acclaimed the harmonisation and application of the Popular Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (PDRMs) in Ethiopia’s justice system. To this effect, they have sponsored national and regional forums, conferences and workshops;...»

«Armenians and Terror Chronology 1973-1986 January 27, 1973 Santa Barbara, USA: Armenian-American citizen Gourgen Yanikyan (Yanikian) murdered Turkish Ambassadors, Mehmet Baydar and Bahadir Demir. Yanikyan was sentenced to life-long prison. April 4, 1973 Paris, France: Turkish Embassy and THY (Turkish Airlines) offices were attacked with bombs. Severe damage was reported. July 2, 1973. Gourgen Yanikyan, who triggered the Armenian terror by assassinating 2 Turkish Ambassadors in Santa Barbara was...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.