Intellectual Property IV: Licensing and Litigation, Infringement CSUCI2008 BIOL503 K. Pessin

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement Infringement What is it What are the defenses How do you prove it Bonus lesson: Persuasion

Infringement

What is it

What are the defenses

How do you prove it

Bonus lesson: Persuasion

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement Infringement Literal or equivalent? Literal – accused product “reads on” claim Equivalents –not literal, but “function-way-result” Direct or indirect? Direct – accused is the wrongdoer Indirect Inducement – providing infringing instrumentality, requires “intent” and knowledge of patent Contributory –specially adapted component, not a “staple in commerce”

Infringement

Literal or equivalent?

Literal – accused product “reads on” claim

Equivalents –not literal, but “function-way-result”

Direct or indirect?

Direct – accused is the wrongdoer

Indirect

Inducement – providing infringing instrumentality, requires “intent” and knowledge of patent

Contributory –specially adapted component, not a “staple in commerce”

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Reverse doctrine of equivalents: Recombinant VIII:C may be so far changed “in principle” from human plasma-derived VIII:C that there is no infringement under the “reverse doctrine of equivalents”.

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement Reverse doctrine of equivalents: Recombinant VIII:C may be so far changed “in principle” from human plasma-derived VIII:C that there is no infringement under the “reverse doctrine of equivalents”.

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Infringement = Judge or jury decides After “Markman” hearing Court interprets claims as a matter of law Accused product (or process) is not considered for claim interpretation (usually), so this may be first time jury sees accuser’s product.

Infringement = Judge or jury decides

After “Markman” hearing

Court interprets claims as a matter of law

Accused product (or process) is not considered for claim interpretation (usually), so this may be first time jury sees accuser’s product.

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement How to be persuasive in proving infringement Resolve doubt - techniques Eliminate bias Mona Lisa” principle: authenticity “ Blackboard” methods Contrasts Persuasion techniques – excerpted from presentation by Sean Luner, Dovel & Luner, LLP – contingent patent lawyers, http://www.dovellaw.com/

How to be persuasive in proving infringement

Resolve doubt - techniques

Eliminate bias

Mona Lisa” principle: authenticity

“ Blackboard” methods

Contrasts

Persuasion techniques – excerpted from presentation by Sean Luner, Dovel & Luner, LLP – contingent patent lawyers, http://www.dovellaw.com/

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Resolve doubt, eliminate bias Most persuasive for patentees: Accused’s statements and documents Most persuasive for accused in rebutting infringement: Patentee’s statements and documents Bias-o-meter Patentee Accused infringer Of course I don’t infringe! If their claims mean all that, they stole the invention from the prior art! The accused is a scam-artist copyist!

Resolve doubt, eliminate bias

Most persuasive for patentees: Accused’s statements and documents

Most persuasive for accused in rebutting infringement: Patentee’s statements and documents

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Scripps v. Genentech Patent: blood purified Factor VIII:C (clotting factor for hemophilia) Accused product: Recombinant Factor VIII:C made with human gene placed in mammalian cell Main disputed term: “human”

Scripps v. Genentech

Patent: blood purified Factor VIII:C (clotting factor for hemophilia)

Accused product: Recombinant Factor VIII:C made with human gene placed in mammalian cell

Main disputed term: “human”

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement District Court: “See? Genentech even admitted that its recombinant Factor VIII:C is identical to human blood VIII:C” “ . . .In an article published in Scientific American in March 1986, after commencement of this action, Genentech's Drs. Lawn and Vehar stated: "Bioengineered factor VIII does clot hemophilic blood. Indeed, it has been found to be equivalent in every way to the blood-derived protein. " Lawn & Vehar, The Molecular Genetics of Hemophilia, Sci.Am., March 1986, at 52 (emphasis added). . .” Scripps Clinic & Research v. Genentech (N.D.Cal. 1987)

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Federal Circuit: “Not so fast, district court. See, Scripps even admitted that recombinant and plasma are ‘apples and oranges’”. . .

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Resolving doubt: “Mona Lisa” principle: People want to see the authentic thing (that’s why they go to the Louvre) Example: “ Kevin Federline requires whiskey and vodka in his dressing room”

Resolving doubt: “Mona Lisa” principle:

People want to see the authentic thing (that’s why they go to the Louvre)

Example:

“ Kevin Federline requires whiskey and vodka in his dressing room”

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement “ Scripps clone 2.2.9 was their best clone.”

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement ?

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Blackboard methods: Step wise explanation

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement FOR ILLUSTRATION – NOT NECESSARILY A TRUE EXAMPLE

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Contrasts Salt New Car Old car Sugar

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=1&page=a&zoom=4 Field Trip

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement $250,000 Wiretap Likely no useful information Watergate: Good idea or bad idea? $1,000,000 Kidnapping Burglary Wiretap High price call girls Likely no useful information

$250,000

Wiretap

Likely no useful information

$1,000,000

Kidnapping

Burglary

Wiretap

High price call girls

Likely no useful information

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement $1,000,000 Kidnapping Burglary Wiretap High price call girls $250,000 Wiretap Watergate: Good idea!

$1,000,000

Kidnapping

Burglary

Wiretap

High price call girls

$250,000

Wiretap

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Contrast: That poisonous ol’ plasma derived “human” VIII:C with super-sleek, ultra-pure recombinant “human” VIII:C Human from human blood as in the patent Identical A little different Totally different Human from human blood in the prior art, maybe just a little less pure Recombinant – you can’t get plasma derived stuff this pure! It’s apples and oranges!

Contrast: That poisonous ol’ plasma derived “human” VIII:C with super-sleek, ultra-pure recombinant “human” VIII:C

Intellectual Property IV: Infringement, proving infringement Persuasion Removal of doubt Eliminate bias – use adversary’s admissions “ Mona Lisa” - demonstrate authenticity “ Blackboard” – stepwise explanation Contrasts – demonstrate differences or similarities

Persuasion

Removal of doubt

Eliminate bias – use adversary’s admissions

“ Mona Lisa” - demonstrate authenticity

“ Blackboard” – stepwise explanation

Contrasts – demonstrate differences or similarities

END Intellectual Property IV: Litigation and Licensing, Infringement CSUCI2008 BIOL503 K. Pessin Next: Bad Acts