Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Santa Clara Law Best Practices in Patent Litigation Survey

68 Pages Posted: 11 Sep 2013 Last revised: 15 Jan 2015

Colleen V. Chien

Santa Clara University - School of Law

Daniel Dobkin

R2 Semiconductor, Inc.

Wesley Helmholz

Independent

Coryn Millslagle

Independent

John Neal

Independent

Nicole Shanahan

Independent

Christopher Patrick Tosetti

University of Chicago Law School

Date Written: September 1, 2013

Abstract

Over the past few years, Congress, appellate, and district courts have made significant strides to improve patent law and litigation practice. Congress is now considering making more changes, to supplement ongoing tailoring by the courts. Dialog between the patent bench, patent bar, and lawmakers is crucial for informing these efforts. To support this dialog, we developed, in consultation with judges and company lawyers in spring of 2013, a list of questions to probe the experiences, opinions, and suggestions of lawyers. We asked survey takers to rate, on a range from ineffective to very effective at enhancing the efficiency of litigation, certain existing and proposed practices and interventions, and converted these scores into numerical ratings (up to a highest possible effectiveness score of 100%). Based on over 500 responses, about a quarter from in-house counsel mostly at large technology companies and the remainder from outside (law firm) counsel, we probed a number of topics, and made a number of findings.

For example, the highest rated intervention of any was timely decisions on summary judgment motions (86%) followed by timely decision on transfer motions (71%). Early claim construction also rated highly (around 68%). Among recent reforms, the FCAC e-Discovery model order ranked the highest in effectiveness (45%). However commentators said of many recent reforms that too much variance in court uptake and implementations, due to the discretion given to judges, undermined their effectiveness.

Among proposed legislative reforms, fee-shifting and sanctions for prevailing parties and for discovery abuses rated most favorably (~65%). Based on about one hundred outside counsel responses, discovery abuses, followed by frivolous claims/defenses, were in the greatest need of sanction or shifting. Respondents also identified abuses that tended to be particular to plaintiffs: evasive discovery responses, overly burdensome or excessive discovery requests, frivolous/meritless claims, and unreasonable claim construction positions; as well as to defendants: stalling or failing to provide requested information, hiding non-infringement positions, and unreasonably delaying or asking for late trial dates.

We asked about the contexts of patent litigation – 86% of in-house counsel reported that their company’s customers had received PAE demands based on the use or implementation or the company’s products. There was a split in responses about monetization of patents – slightly more than half of inhouse respondents indicated that their company had not experienced greater pressure to monetize, while slightly less than half indicated that their company had either monetized (23%) or were thinking of doing so (28%).

Keywords: patent, patent litigation, survey, best practices

JEL Classification: K41, K11

Suggested Citation

Chien, Colleen V. and Dobkin, Daniel and Helmholz, Wesley and Millslagle, Coryn and Neal, John and Shanahan, Nicole and Tosetti, Christopher Patrick, Santa Clara Law Best Practices in Patent Litigation Survey (September 1, 2013). Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 27-13. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2321363 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2321363

Colleen Chien (Contact Author)

Santa Clara University - School of Law ( email )

500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053
United States
408-554-4534 (Phone)
408-554-4426 (Fax)

Daniel Dobkin

R2 Semiconductor, Inc. ( email )

No Address Available

Wesley Helmholz

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

Coryn Millslagle

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

John Neal

Independent

No Address Available

Nicole Shanahan

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

Christopher Tosetti

University of Chicago Law School ( email )

25 E. Pearson
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
239
Rank
109,801
Abstract Views
1,429