© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
BEST PATENT PRACTICES IN A TRANSFORMING ENVIRONMENT
PART 2:EVOLVING STRATEGIES FOR PATENT ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 2
MEET THE PRESENTERS
Christopher LarusChair, IP & Technology Litigation Practice
Robins Kaplan LLP
Timothy BianchiPrincipal
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
A TRANSFORMING RISK ENVIRONMENT
IPRs and Other Post Grant Proceedings Challenges to patent eligible subject matter Definiteness Changes in law governing patent damages Increased difficulty in obtaining injunctive relief
W H AT H A S C H A N G E D I N E N F O R C E M E N T A N D L I C E N S I N G ?
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES
Clarity of claims and description Demonstrable infringement No apparent validity flaws (especially § 101) Portfolio size Open prosecution
S E L E C T I N G PAT E N T S F O R E N F O R C E M E N T
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES
High-value infringing market Credible damages calculation Geographic scope
W H E R E M O N E T I Z AT I O N I S F O C U S
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES
A sustainable damages theory requires proof of three elements:
W H E R E M O N E T I Z AT I O N I S F O C U S
TechnicalImprovement
QuantifiedEconomic
Benefit
RoyaltyRate
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES
Reduced risk of non-infringement finding SEPs enable broad-based enforcement and potentially
large damages base Allow economies of scale when pursuing enforcement Enable straightforward pre-suit infringement assessment
based upon publicly available information Licensing market for standards essential patents continues
to mature as the standard becomes increasingly implemented
S TA N D A R D E S S E N T I A L PAT E N T S
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES
Law regarding valuation of SEPs remains unsettled
1. Valuation not based on necessity to practice standard
2. Where valuation is based on premiums associated with standard, additional burdens to show value relative to other SEPs
3. Targets often raise burdens of royalty stack to limit exposure
SSO efforts alters risks associated with assessing validity
S TA N D A R D E S S E N T I A L PAT E N T S
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES
Data analytics increasingly used in enforcement– Selection of venue– Assessment of licensing/enforcement targets– Predicting motion and case outcomes– Evaluating outside counsel performance
Analytics can also provide powerful tools in evaluating patents for licensing/enforcement
I N C R E A S E D U S E O F D ATA A N A LY T I C S
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 10
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1600 2100 2400 2600 3600 3700 1700 2800
Relative Institution Rate by Tech Center, 2012-16By Proceeding Basis, p-value < 0.05; 95% confidence
EVOLVING STRATEGIESU S I N G A N A LY T I C S T O I D E N T I F Y PAT E N T S
TC Technology Center Name
1600 Biotech/O Chem
1700 Chem/Mats Eng
2100 Comp Arch/Software
2400 Comp Networks/Multiplexing/Video
2600 Communications
2800 Semiconductors/Electrical/Optical Sys
3600 Transportation/Construction/E-Commerce
3700 ME/Mfg
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 11
-175%
-150%
-125%
-100%
-75%
-50%
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
1600 2400 3600 2100 2600 3700 2800 1700
Relative Survival Rate of at Least 1 Claim Tech Center, 2012-16By Proceeding Basis, p-value <0.05; 95% confidence
EVOLVING STRATEGIESU S I N G A N A LY T I C S T O I D E N T I F Y PAT E N T S
TC Technology Center Name
1600 Biotech/O Chem
1700 Chem/Mats Eng
2100 Comp Arch/Software
2400 Comp Networks/Multiplexing/Video
2600 Communications
2800 Semiconductors/Electrical/Optical Sys
3600 Transportation/Construction/E-Commerce
3700 ME/Mfg
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 12
Pat
ent T
erm
Rem
aini
ng (Y
rs)
Percentile for forward references
Feature Represents
Size of circle
Size of patent family
Red dot
No open continuations
Green dot Open continuations
EVOLVING STRATEGIESU S I N G A N A LY T I C S T O I D E N T I F Y PAT E N T S
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 13
Family ID
# U.S.Family Members
RepresentativePatent in Family Patent Title
A 6 7465348 Nanosized particles of monoazo laked pigment
B 4 7058661 System and method for electronically managing discovery pleading information
C 5 7282733 Polythiophenes and devices thereof
D 4 7118205 Heater and drip plate for ink loader melt assembly
E 13 7356183 Segmentation method and system for multiple raster content (MRC) representation of documents
F 6 6905633 Compounds of formula (3) to stabilize liquid crystal domains
G 4 6987882 Separation system for Multiple Raster Content (MRC) representation of documents
H 16 8799037 Computer-implemented system and method for managing motor vehicle parking reservations
Increasing average family percentile for Forward References
Pat
ent T
erm
Rem
aini
ng (Y
rs)
50 10060 70 80 906
12
14
16
10
8
EVOLVING STRATEGIESU S I N G A N A LY T I C S T O I D E N T I F Y PAT E N T S
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 14
Single page views of key attributes of patents and file history allows for quick triage Including comparative
information showing how patent compares to patents of similar age and technology
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 15
Expiration Date: 12/5/2021
Issue Date: 08/09/2005
Filing Date: 12/5/2001
Claimed Priority Date: 08/13/2001
Office Actions: 5
Independent Claims (total): 4
Independent Method Claims: 4
Independent ApparatusClaims: 0
“Means for” or “Step for” Independent Claims: 0
Dependent Claims (total): 19
Family Size (U.S.): 9
Open Continuations: No
Stats:
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 16
Top 3 Citing Entitiess (# Times):
1) EMC (7)
2) Google (5)
3) Microsoft Technology Licensing (2)
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 17
Exemplary claim term(s) absent from specification (red text):
Claim(s) in which it appears:
…of the identified entitles that exist in…
Claims 1, 14, 18, 21-(all independent)
…document accessed that cites a plurality of authorities…
Claim 2-(dependent)
…a symmetry metric with identical…
Claim 2-(dependent)
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 18
Box Plots: Percentage of Patent Compared to the Field
99th Percentile for Specification Length
80th Percentile for Cited Refs.
97th Percentile for Forward Refs.
~
100
90 88Forward refs.
1280(Max Value In peer group)
~
1300
~~
21cited refs.
~~455
455(Max Value In peer group)
320,300 characters
350000
~~~~
1650000 1,654,363(Max Value In peer group)
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
ENFORCEMENT IN LIGHT OF AIA REVIEWS
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PATENT GENERATION CYCLE (PRE-AIA)
Assert Them
Litigate
Procure Patents
20
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PATENT GENERATION CYCLE (POST-AIA)
Assert
Hurdle 1PTAB
Hurdle 2Litigate
Procure Patents
21
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PTAB STATISTICS
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 23
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 24
PTAB DATA (AS OF 2 /28 /2017)S O U R C E : U S P T O . G O V
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 25
IPR AND CBM PETIT IONS 2012-16C O U R T E S Y T E R R Y M C N E I L - L E X M A C H I N A
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 26
IPR PETIT IONS F ILED FROM 2012-2016 AND TERMINATED BY 2016C O U R T E S Y T E R R Y M C N E I L - L E X M A C H I N A
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 27
ANOTHER SNAPSHOT FROM 2015 . . .C O U R T E S Y T E R R Y M C N E I L - L E X M A C H I N A
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PTAB OBSERVATIONS IPR filings remain robust (~160/mo)
– CBMR filings dropping (~7/mo)– PGR filings tepid (~2/mo)
Pre-Institution Patent Owner testimonial evidence– Jury is still out on whether it helps PO
Patent Friendly Decisions on the Rise– Institution is not cancellation
Claim amendments still elusive
Estoppel– No decisive guidelines yet
28
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PETITIONER TIPS Haste makes waste: quickly drafted petitions can miss the best prior art and the
clearest arguments
Great prior art makes petition drafting easier and less costly
Claims which you do not successfully cancel are made stronger
Petitioners have to work hard to make clear arguments for the Board– Ensure your IPR team is at least as technical as the Board
Claim Constructions are one way to establish veracity, or destroy it
29
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PATENT OWNER TIPS
The best review is no review
Winning on institution is the next best thing
If instituted for trial, statistics are more favorable for Patent Owner than before
Avoid waiver of defenses for possible appeal
Challenge old ways of thinking about prior art searching and disclosure
30
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PATENT ENFORCEMENT
31
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EVOLVING STRATEGIES IN LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PRACTICAL IMPACTS
1. Changes have generally increased risks for patent holders– Risk of adverse court result– Risk that targets will refuse licensing overtures
Mitigating the Risk:– Careful asset selection– Focus on curation of diverse portfolio– Numerosity – size matters, but quality remains key– Concurrent enforcement – not serial targeting– Focus remains on credibility of enforcement risk
A D A P T I N G T O C H A N G I N G E N V I R O N M E N T
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PRACTICAL IMPACTS
2. Licensing and enforcement takes longer– Stays pending IPR or other post grant review
– Increased motion practice leads to delays in schedule
– Licensing targets less likely to pursue early stage resolution
A D A P T I N G T O C H A N G I N G E N V I R O N M E N T
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PRACTICAL IMPACTS
2. Enforcement and licensing takes longer– Stays pending IPR or other post grant review
– Increased motion practice leads to delays in schedule
– Licensing targets less likely to pursue early stage resolution
Mitigating the Risk:
– Take risk of delay head on when setting case schedule
– Upfront planning helps minimize delay
– Not all PTAB activity is viewed the same
A D A P T I N G T O C H A N G I N G E N V I R O N M E N T
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PRACTICAL IMPACTS
3. Changes increase market inefficiencies– More difficult to predict outcomes based on public data
– Increases value of technical and strategic expertise
But, licensing and enforcement remains highly active– Reduced enforcement is primarily at bottom end of market
– 14 of top 100 verdicts last year involved patents or licensing
– WIPO and other economic studies show continued growth in licensing revenue
A D A P T I N G T O C H A N G I N G E N V I R O N M E N T
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
EARLY SETTLEMENT OF IPRS
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PETIT IONER PSYCHOLOGY
Patent has every appearance of being invalid
– Known publication prior art “data points”
– Concern about certain dependent claims?
Nonpublication Prior Art also Known
– Non-publication prior art can be useful in patent litigation if IPR not successful
IPRs are statistically successful, but if I don’t win on institution of IPR on at least the relevant claims it will be harder to defend against this patent
Petitioner Concludes:
– Patent Owner isn’t reasonable
– Company Will Not Pay For License/Patent
– As long as institution and final written decision against patent is likely, Petitioner will forge ahead
38
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PETIT IONER WANTS TO KNOW
Will the IPR be successful?
– Against all relevant claims?
• Are there relevant dependent claims that are likely to survive the IPR?
– Partial institution and/or partial invalidity is not a full solution
Can I get a claim construction that will resolve issues for me in a parallel litigation?
Does the Patent Owner have a right to file continuations?
Will this challenge of the patent help me or help my competition or both?
39
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PSYCHOLOGY OF PATENT OWNER
My claims were allowed for a reason
– The Patent Office issued the claimed invention
– Want to tell my story of why my claims are patentable over the prior art
The petition is flawed
– It has defects
– The cited prior art is not on point
• Or: prior art is analogous, but I have dependent claims that should survive the IPR
If my patent claims are instituted for trial, it could ruin my chances to enforce patent against Petitioner and against otherdefendants
Patent Owner wants to fight the IPR, but institution is a serious threat
40
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
PATENT OWNER WANTS TO
Tell a consistent story with its patents
– How can that be done with BRI v. Phillips claim constructions?
Use the IPR to strengthen its patent(s)
– That which does not kill my patents, only makes them stronger
– But avoid joinder opportunities for other potential petitioner defendants
Educate other infringers about the strength if its portfolio
41
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
IPR T IMELINE (EARLY STAGES)
42
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
IPR T IMELINE (CONT’D)
43
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
HOW PETIT IONER-DEFENDANTS ENCOURAGE EARLY SETTLEMENT
Develop case against the patent up-front, thoroughly– Need best prior art and arguments to play before the Patent Owner
Know how you stand compared to other defendants/potential defendants– Relative magnitude of liability– Timing of suits/bars– IPR team factors– Complicating factors
• e.g. real party in interest
Communicate the strengths of Petitioner’s IPR without undermining it– Petitioner needs to show that it understands the target patent, its technology, the prior art, and the process better than Patent Owner
understands it
Sometimes filing the petition is the only way to resolve the conflict
44
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
HOW PATENT OWNERS ENCOURAGE EARLY SETTLEMENT
Analyze patent at issue promptly in either case:– Upon a threat of IPR (no petition filed)
• Communicated by potential petitioner or litigation team
– After IPR petition is filed
Critical to get as much information as possible and review the assertions using experience and an open mind
If a petition is filed, and negotiation is not a likely option, prepare a strong Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response– With testimonial evidence?
Be realistic about the prior art and amendments– Broadest reasonable interpretation
Use other incentives
45
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
HIGHER POTENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT BEFORETHE INST ITUT ION DECIS ION WHEN . . .
Petitioner Defendant is not the Patent Owner’s main target– And moreso if:
• Petitioner has a strong litigation team and strong IPR petition• Other Defendants are barred under the 315(b) for failure to timely file an IPR petition
– Joinder is their only entry to IPR
46
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
HIGHER POTENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT AFTER INSTITUTION DECISION WHEN . . .
Partial Institution of Claims– Especially when Petitioner is barred or effectively barred from future IPR filings
Multiple Patent Cases with Many Petitions– Especially with partial institution of patents/claims
47
© 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP; SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA 48
QUESTIONS?
Christopher [email protected](612) 349-0116
Timothy [email protected](612) 373-6912