Patent Injunctions Two Years After  eBay Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education  2008 Intellectual Property Conference  ...
<ul><li>gesmer.com/mcleseminar </li></ul>
<ul><li>Continental Paper </li></ul><ul><li>(1908) </li></ul>
<ul><li>never used </li></ul>
<ul><li>never licensed </li></ul>
<ul><li>“non-practicing entity” (NPE) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Supreme Court : </li></ul><ul><li>no obligation to make use or vend the invention </li></ul>
<ul><li>patent grant is  right to exclude  others from making, using or vending </li></ul>
<ul><li>Carbice Corp   (USSC 1931 ): </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;the [patent] owner can, of course,  prohibit entirely  the mf...
<ul><li>Harford-Empire  (USSC 1945): </li></ul><ul><li>set price for use by others </li></ul><ul><li>use and  refuse to li...
<ul><li>U.S. Line  (USSC 1948): </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;a patent confers a  monopoly  … so this court decided in  Paper Ba...
<ul><li>Zenith Radio  (USSC 1969) </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;The heart of [legal monopoly]…is legal monopoly is the right to ...
<ul><li>MercExchange v. eBay  (E.D. Va) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Patent 5,845,265: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Consignment nodes” </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas G. Woolston </li></ul><ul><li>Fi...
<ul><li>“ What is claimed is: </li></ul><ul><li>1. A system for presenting a  data record of a good for sale to a market f...
 
 
<ul><li>District Court : </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of commercial activity  </li></ul><ul><li>willingness to license  </li></u...
<ul><li>permanent injunction denied </li></ul>
<ul><li>Federal Circuit :  </li></ul><ul><li>right to exclude  is  &quot;essence&quot; of patent  property right </li></ul>
<ul><li>General Rule :  </li></ul><ul><li>Permanent  injunction issues,  except in &quot; rare  instances &quot; </li></ul>
<ul><li>case must be &quot; exceptional  to justify the denial of a permanent injunction&quot; </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;practice&quot; = irrelevant </li></ul>
<ul><li>eBay v. MercExchange , 547 U.S. 1015 (May 15, 2006) </li></ul>
<ul><li>U.S. Const. Art. I, </li></ul><ul><li>§8,cl. 8:  </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;The Congress shall have power to: </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors </li...
<ul><li>… the exclusive right  to their respective writings and discoveries&quot;  </li></ul>
<ul><li>35 U.S.C. 261  : </li></ul><ul><li>“ patents shall have  the attributes of  personal property ” </li></ul>
* <ul><li>35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) : </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;the  right to exclude   others from using,  offering for sale or  ...
<ul><li>but … </li></ul>
<ul><li>35 U.S.C. 283: </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title  may   grant injunctio...
<ul><li>. . .to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent,  on such terms as the court deems reasonable .&quot;...
<ul><li>Justice Thomas : </li></ul><ul><li>“ right to exclude” distinct from “provision of remedies” </li></ul>
<ul><li>Four-factor test: </li></ul>
<ul><li>plaintiff  must prove : </li></ul><ul><li>irreparable harm </li></ul><ul><li>remedies at law inadequate </li></ul>
<ul><li>equity warranted considering balance of hardships; and </li></ul><ul><li>public interest not disserved </li></ul>
<ul><li>no categorical rule for nonpracticing patentees,  but : </li></ul>
<ul><li>university researcher </li></ul><ul><li>self-made inventors </li></ul>
<ul><li>Thomas: </li></ul><ul><li>“we hold only that” </li></ul>
<ul><li>“equitable discretion” </li></ul>
<ul><li>“traditional principles of equity” </li></ul>
<ul><li>Roberts (Scalia, Ginsburg) : </li></ul><ul><li>injunctive relief in vast majority of cases </li></ul><ul><li>Court...
<ul><li>“a page of history is worth a volume of logic” </li></ul>
<ul><li>Kennedy (Stevens, Souter, Breyer) : </li></ul><ul><li>“ right to exclude does not dictate the remedy” </li></ul>
<ul><li>“ nature  of the patent and the  economic function  of the patent holder” </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;new era&quot; of patent holding companies </li></ul><ul><li>“ vagueness and suspect” of business method pate...
<ul><li>small component </li></ul><ul><li>leverage/bargaining tool </li></ul>
<ul><li>experience since  eBay </li></ul>
 
 
<ul><li>(1) </li></ul>
<ul><li>z4 v. Microsoft  (EDtTx 2006, Davis) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Windows XP, 2000 activation codes </li></ul><ul><li>willful infringement, enhanced damages </li></ul>
<ul><li>eBay : </li></ul><ul><li>“ plaintiff  must prove:”  irreparable harm … </li></ul>
<ul><li>Judge Davis :  </li></ul><ul><li>after  eBay,  irreparable harm not presumed </li></ul>
<ul><li>permanent injunction denied </li></ul><ul><li>reasonable royalty imposed for  past  infringement used for  ongoing...
<ul><li>factors : </li></ul><ul><li>z4 licensor, not competitor </li></ul><ul><li>small component </li></ul><ul><li>no obs...
<ul><li>MS &quot;parade of horribles&quot;-  </li></ul><ul><li>software redesign </li></ul><ul><li>re-releases </li></ul><...
<ul><li>piracy </li></ul><ul><li>industry wide ripple effect/OEMs </li></ul>
<ul><li>(2) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Finisar v. DirectTV  (EDtTx 2006, Clark) </li></ul>
<ul><li>willful infringement </li></ul><ul><li>enhanced damages </li></ul><ul><li>licensor, not competitor </li></ul><ul><...
<ul><li>$1.60 per set top box </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;it is anticipated that, as sophisticated entities with experience in licensing agreements, the parties may w...
<ul><li>(3) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Paice v. Toyota  (EDtTx 2006) </li></ul>
<ul><li>hybrid drive trains </li></ul><ul><li>Prius II, Highlander  Lexus RH400 </li></ul>
<ul><li>irreparable harm not presumed </li></ul><ul><li>NPE </li></ul><ul><li>small component  </li></ul>
<ul><li>brand name recognition </li></ul><ul><li>market share </li></ul><ul><li>post-trial offer to license </li></ul>
<ul><li>harm to dealers and  suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>harm to &quot;burgeoning  hybrid market&quot;  </li></ul>
<ul><li>Holding : </li></ul><ul><li>permanent injunction denied </li></ul><ul><li>- &quot;ongoing royalty&quot; </li></ul>...
<ul><li>(4) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Paice v. Toyota -  </li></ul><ul><li>CAFC decision on appeal (Oct. 2007): </li></ul>
<ul><li>jury trial? </li></ul><ul><li>on remand: negotiate before court-ordered license </li></ul><ul><li>ongoing royalty ...
<ul><li>Judge Rader : </li></ul><ul><li>remand to parties, or </li></ul><ul><li>obtain parties’consent </li></ul>
<ul><li>ongoing royalty  </li></ul><ul><li>= compulsory license  </li></ul>
<ul><li>“ Pre-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement are distinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the ...
<ul><li>(5) </li></ul>
<ul><li>MercExchange  on remand to E.D. Va. 2007 </li></ul>
<ul><li>permanent injunction denied a second time </li></ul>
<ul><li>finding of willfulness not dispositive </li></ul><ul><li>willingness to license significant factor </li></ul>
<ul><li>obtained licenses through threat of litigation </li></ul><ul><li>didn’t seek preliminary injunction </li></ul><ul>...
<ul><li>if money is all it seeks, money is sufficient remedy </li></ul><ul><li>PTO reexam &quot;impacts the equitable calc...
<ul><li>(6,7) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Visto v. Seven Networks  (EDtTX 2006, Ward) </li></ul><ul><li>Brooktrout v. Eicon  (EDtTX 2007, Ward) </li></ul>
 
 
<ul><li>fact parties are direct competitors weighs heavily </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;intellectual property enjoys its highest value when … asserted against a direct competitor in plaintiff’s ma...
<ul><li>“right to exclude is the very essence of the intellectual property at issue” </li></ul>
<ul><li>Other factors : </li></ul><ul><li>goodwill </li></ul><ul><li>potential revenues </li></ul><ul><li>market share </l...
<ul><li>(8) </li></ul>
<ul><li>Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks  (D. Mass, Zobel) </li></ul>
 
<ul><li>Graphic </li></ul>
 
<ul><li>Akamai: </li></ul><ul><li>direct competitors </li></ul><ul><li>customer relations </li></ul><ul><li>goodwill </li>...
<ul><li>Akamai has never  licensed </li></ul><ul><li>damages/reasonable  certainty </li></ul><ul><li>alternatives </li></ul>
<ul><li>Limelight:  </li></ul><ul><li>Akamai prospered  </li></ul><ul><li>restraint on monopoly power  </li></ul><ul><li>p...
<ul><li>non-willful  </li></ul><ul><li>cost to poorer customers  </li></ul><ul><li>job loss </li></ul>
<ul><li>What questions remain? </li></ul><ul><li>What have we learned? </li></ul>
<ul><li>? </li></ul>
<ul><li>should patent holder be comp’d at higher / different rate if continued, willful infringment? </li></ul>
<ul><li>compulsory license rewards infringer? </li></ul>
<ul><li>eBay  Hearings? </li></ul>
<ul><li>indemnification? </li></ul><ul><li>audit rights? </li></ul><ul><li>choice of law? </li></ul><ul><li>new products? ...
<ul><li>Alternative?  -  </li></ul><ul><li>no forced royalties </li></ul><ul><li>new suit  </li></ul><ul><li>damages; treb...
<ul><li>preliminary injunctions? </li></ul>
<ul><li>Copyright, trademark?  </li></ul>
<ul><li>but we know … </li></ul>
<ul><li>&quot;automatic injunction&quot; </li></ul>
<ul><li>presumption of irreparable harm </li></ul>
<ul><li>non-practicing patentees  face steep odds </li></ul><ul><li>“ patent holding companies ” face  extremely  steep od...
<ul><li>in NPE / non-competitive cases, threat of  catastrophic result  is greatly minimized, if not gone </li></ul>
 
<ul><li>easier to analyze and calculate risk </li></ul>
<ul><li>litigation strategies </li></ul>
<ul><li>Patent holder: </li></ul><ul><li>practice </li></ul><ul><li>compete  </li></ul><ul><li>limited license deals  </li...
<ul><li>reject settlement offers </li></ul><ul><li>name licensee in suit </li></ul><ul><li>ITC exclusion order? </li></ul>
<ul><li>accused infringer: </li></ul><ul><li>reasonable royalties </li></ul><ul><li>equities -  </li></ul><ul><li>economic...
<ul><li>bait settlement offer (FRE 408?) </li></ul><ul><li>public interest (medical, safety, defense) </li></ul><ul><li>wo...
<ul><li>THANK YOU! </li></ul>
<ul><li>and remember :  </li></ul><ul><li>gesmer.com/mcleseminar </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ebay Slidecast Seminar

454

Published on

Test file

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
454
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Ebay Slidecast Seminar

    1. 1. Patent Injunctions Two Years After eBay Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education 2008 Intellectual Property Conference June 18 2008 Lee Gesmer Gesmer Updegrove LLP
    2. 2. <ul><li>gesmer.com/mcleseminar </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>Continental Paper </li></ul><ul><li>(1908) </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>never used </li></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>never licensed </li></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>“non-practicing entity” (NPE) </li></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>Supreme Court : </li></ul><ul><li>no obligation to make use or vend the invention </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>patent grant is right to exclude others from making, using or vending </li></ul>
    9. 9. <ul><li>Carbice Corp (USSC 1931 ): </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;the [patent] owner can, of course, prohibit entirely the mfg., sale, or use of [the invention] </li></ul>
    10. 10. <ul><li>Harford-Empire (USSC 1945): </li></ul><ul><li>set price for use by others </li></ul><ul><li>use and refuse to license </li></ul><ul><li>neither use nor license </li></ul>
    11. 11. <ul><li>U.S. Line (USSC 1948): </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;a patent confers a monopoly … so this court decided in Paper Bag &quot; </li></ul>
    12. 12. <ul><li>Zenith Radio (USSC 1969) </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;The heart of [legal monopoly]…is legal monopoly is the right to invoke the State's power to prevent others from utilizing his discovery without his consent&quot; </li></ul>
    13. 13. <ul><li>MercExchange v. eBay (E.D. Va) </li></ul>
    14. 14. <ul><li>Patent 5,845,265: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Consignment nodes” </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas G. Woolston </li></ul><ul><li>Filed: November 7, 1995 </li></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>“ What is claimed is: </li></ul><ul><li>1. A system for presenting a data record of a good for sale to a market for goods, said market for goods having an interface to a wide area communication network for presenting and offering goods for sale to a purchaser, …” </li></ul>
    16. 18. <ul><li>District Court : </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of commercial activity </li></ul><ul><li>willingness to license </li></ul><ul><li>business method patent </li></ul>
    17. 19. <ul><li>permanent injunction denied </li></ul>
    18. 20. <ul><li>Federal Circuit : </li></ul><ul><li>right to exclude is &quot;essence&quot; of patent property right </li></ul>
    19. 21. <ul><li>General Rule : </li></ul><ul><li>Permanent injunction issues, except in &quot; rare instances &quot; </li></ul>
    20. 22. <ul><li>case must be &quot; exceptional to justify the denial of a permanent injunction&quot; </li></ul>
    21. 23. <ul><li>&quot;practice&quot; = irrelevant </li></ul>
    22. 24. <ul><li>eBay v. MercExchange , 547 U.S. 1015 (May 15, 2006) </li></ul>
    23. 25. <ul><li>U.S. Const. Art. I, </li></ul><ul><li>§8,cl. 8: </li></ul>
    24. 26. <ul><li>&quot;The Congress shall have power to: </li></ul>
    25. 27. <ul><li>&quot;promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors </li></ul>
    26. 28. <ul><li>… the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries&quot; </li></ul>
    27. 29. <ul><li>35 U.S.C. 261 : </li></ul><ul><li>“ patents shall have the attributes of personal property ” </li></ul>
    28. 30. * <ul><li>35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) : </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States&quot; </li></ul>
    29. 31. <ul><li>but … </li></ul>
    30. 32. <ul><li>35 U.S.C. 283: </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity … </li></ul>
    31. 33. <ul><li>. . .to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable .&quot; </li></ul>
    32. 34. <ul><li>Justice Thomas : </li></ul><ul><li>“ right to exclude” distinct from “provision of remedies” </li></ul>
    33. 35. <ul><li>Four-factor test: </li></ul>
    34. 36. <ul><li>plaintiff must prove : </li></ul><ul><li>irreparable harm </li></ul><ul><li>remedies at law inadequate </li></ul>
    35. 37. <ul><li>equity warranted considering balance of hardships; and </li></ul><ul><li>public interest not disserved </li></ul>
    36. 38. <ul><li>no categorical rule for nonpracticing patentees, but : </li></ul>
    37. 39. <ul><li>university researcher </li></ul><ul><li>self-made inventors </li></ul>
    38. 40. <ul><li>Thomas: </li></ul><ul><li>“we hold only that” </li></ul>
    39. 41. <ul><li>“equitable discretion” </li></ul>
    40. 42. <ul><li>“traditional principles of equity” </li></ul>
    41. 43. <ul><li>Roberts (Scalia, Ginsburg) : </li></ul><ul><li>injunctive relief in vast majority of cases </li></ul><ul><li>Court is not “writing on a completely clean slate” </li></ul>
    42. 44. <ul><li>“a page of history is worth a volume of logic” </li></ul>
    43. 45. <ul><li>Kennedy (Stevens, Souter, Breyer) : </li></ul><ul><li>“ right to exclude does not dictate the remedy” </li></ul>
    44. 46. <ul><li>“ nature of the patent and the economic function of the patent holder” </li></ul>
    45. 47. <ul><li>&quot;new era&quot; of patent holding companies </li></ul><ul><li>“ vagueness and suspect” of business method patents </li></ul>
    46. 48. <ul><li>small component </li></ul><ul><li>leverage/bargaining tool </li></ul>
    47. 49. <ul><li>experience since eBay </li></ul>
    48. 52. <ul><li>(1) </li></ul>
    49. 53. <ul><li>z4 v. Microsoft (EDtTx 2006, Davis) </li></ul>
    50. 54. <ul><li>Windows XP, 2000 activation codes </li></ul><ul><li>willful infringement, enhanced damages </li></ul>
    51. 55. <ul><li>eBay : </li></ul><ul><li>“ plaintiff must prove:” irreparable harm … </li></ul>
    52. 56. <ul><li>Judge Davis : </li></ul><ul><li>after eBay, irreparable harm not presumed </li></ul>
    53. 57. <ul><li>permanent injunction denied </li></ul><ul><li>reasonable royalty imposed for past infringement used for ongoing royalty </li></ul>
    54. 58. <ul><li>factors : </li></ul><ul><li>z4 licensor, not competitor </li></ul><ul><li>small component </li></ul><ul><li>no obstacle to z4 licensing to others </li></ul>
    55. 59. <ul><li>MS &quot;parade of horribles&quot;- </li></ul><ul><li>software redesign </li></ul><ul><li>re-releases </li></ul><ul><li>product delays </li></ul>
    56. 60. <ul><li>piracy </li></ul><ul><li>industry wide ripple effect/OEMs </li></ul>
    57. 61. <ul><li>(2) </li></ul>
    58. 62. <ul><li>Finisar v. DirectTV (EDtTx 2006, Clark) </li></ul>
    59. 63. <ul><li>willful infringement </li></ul><ul><li>enhanced damages </li></ul><ul><li>licensor, not competitor </li></ul><ul><li>permanent inj. denied </li></ul>
    60. 64. <ul><li>$1.60 per set top box </li></ul>
    61. 65. <ul><li>&quot;it is anticipated that, as sophisticated entities with experience in licensing agreements, the parties may wish to agree to more comprehensive or convenient terms&quot; </li></ul>
    62. 66. <ul><li>(3) </li></ul>
    63. 67. <ul><li>Paice v. Toyota (EDtTx 2006) </li></ul>
    64. 68. <ul><li>hybrid drive trains </li></ul><ul><li>Prius II, Highlander Lexus RH400 </li></ul>
    65. 69. <ul><li>irreparable harm not presumed </li></ul><ul><li>NPE </li></ul><ul><li>small component </li></ul>
    66. 70. <ul><li>brand name recognition </li></ul><ul><li>market share </li></ul><ul><li>post-trial offer to license </li></ul>
    67. 71. <ul><li>harm to dealers and suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>harm to &quot;burgeoning hybrid market&quot; </li></ul>
    68. 72. <ul><li>Holding : </li></ul><ul><li>permanent injunction denied </li></ul><ul><li>- &quot;ongoing royalty&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>= $25/vehicle </li></ul>
    69. 73. <ul><li>(4) </li></ul>
    70. 74. <ul><li>Paice v. Toyota - </li></ul><ul><li>CAFC decision on appeal (Oct. 2007): </li></ul>
    71. 75. <ul><li>jury trial? </li></ul><ul><li>on remand: negotiate before court-ordered license </li></ul><ul><li>ongoing royalty rate </li></ul>
    72. 76. <ul><li>Judge Rader : </li></ul><ul><li>remand to parties, or </li></ul><ul><li>obtain parties’consent </li></ul>
    73. 77. <ul><li>ongoing royalty </li></ul><ul><li>= compulsory license </li></ul>
    74. 78. <ul><li>“ Pre-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement are distinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the change in the parties’ legal relationship and other factors” </li></ul>
    75. 79. <ul><li>(5) </li></ul>
    76. 80. <ul><li>MercExchange on remand to E.D. Va. 2007 </li></ul>
    77. 81. <ul><li>permanent injunction denied a second time </li></ul>
    78. 82. <ul><li>finding of willfulness not dispositive </li></ul><ul><li>willingness to license significant factor </li></ul>
    79. 83. <ul><li>obtained licenses through threat of litigation </li></ul><ul><li>didn’t seek preliminary injunction </li></ul><ul><li>business method patent </li></ul>
    80. 84. <ul><li>if money is all it seeks, money is sufficient remedy </li></ul><ul><li>PTO reexam &quot;impacts the equitable calculus&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>no B/M &quot;second look&quot; by PTO </li></ul>
    81. 85. <ul><li>(6,7) </li></ul>
    82. 86. <ul><li>Visto v. Seven Networks (EDtTX 2006, Ward) </li></ul><ul><li>Brooktrout v. Eicon (EDtTX 2007, Ward) </li></ul>
    83. 89. <ul><li>fact parties are direct competitors weighs heavily </li></ul>
    84. 90. <ul><li>&quot;intellectual property enjoys its highest value when … asserted against a direct competitor in plaintiff’s market&quot; </li></ul>
    85. 91. <ul><li>“right to exclude is the very essence of the intellectual property at issue” </li></ul>
    86. 92. <ul><li>Other factors : </li></ul><ul><li>goodwill </li></ul><ul><li>potential revenues </li></ul><ul><li>market share </li></ul><ul><li>damages, </li></ul><ul><li> reasonable/precision </li></ul>
    87. 93. <ul><li>(8) </li></ul>
    88. 94. <ul><li>Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks (D. Mass, Zobel) </li></ul>
    89. 96. <ul><li>Graphic </li></ul>
    90. 98. <ul><li>Akamai: </li></ul><ul><li>direct competitors </li></ul><ul><li>customer relations </li></ul><ul><li>goodwill </li></ul>
    91. 99. <ul><li>Akamai has never licensed </li></ul><ul><li>damages/reasonable certainty </li></ul><ul><li>alternatives </li></ul>
    92. 100. <ul><li>Limelight: </li></ul><ul><li>Akamai prospered </li></ul><ul><li>restraint on monopoly power </li></ul><ul><li>preliminary injunction </li></ul>
    93. 101. <ul><li>non-willful </li></ul><ul><li>cost to poorer customers </li></ul><ul><li>job loss </li></ul>
    94. 102. <ul><li>What questions remain? </li></ul><ul><li>What have we learned? </li></ul>
    95. 103. <ul><li>? </li></ul>
    96. 104. <ul><li>should patent holder be comp’d at higher / different rate if continued, willful infringment? </li></ul>
    97. 105. <ul><li>compulsory license rewards infringer? </li></ul>
    98. 106. <ul><li>eBay Hearings? </li></ul>
    99. 107. <ul><li>indemnification? </li></ul><ul><li>audit rights? </li></ul><ul><li>choice of law? </li></ul><ul><li>new products? </li></ul><ul><li>royalty escalations? </li></ul>
    100. 108. <ul><li>Alternative? - </li></ul><ul><li>no forced royalties </li></ul><ul><li>new suit </li></ul><ul><li>damages; trebling for willfulness; att. fees; interest </li></ul>
    101. 109. <ul><li>preliminary injunctions? </li></ul>
    102. 110. <ul><li>Copyright, trademark? </li></ul>
    103. 111. <ul><li>but we know … </li></ul>
    104. 112. <ul><li>&quot;automatic injunction&quot; </li></ul>
    105. 113. <ul><li>presumption of irreparable harm </li></ul>
    106. 114. <ul><li>non-practicing patentees face steep odds </li></ul><ul><li>“ patent holding companies ” face extremely steep odds </li></ul>
    107. 115. <ul><li>in NPE / non-competitive cases, threat of catastrophic result is greatly minimized, if not gone </li></ul>
    108. 117. <ul><li>easier to analyze and calculate risk </li></ul>
    109. 118. <ul><li>litigation strategies </li></ul>
    110. 119. <ul><li>Patent holder: </li></ul><ul><li>practice </li></ul><ul><li>compete </li></ul><ul><li>limited license deals </li></ul><ul><li>avoid “undue leverage” </li></ul>
    111. 120. <ul><li>reject settlement offers </li></ul><ul><li>name licensee in suit </li></ul><ul><li>ITC exclusion order? </li></ul>
    112. 121. <ul><li>accused infringer: </li></ul><ul><li>reasonable royalties </li></ul><ul><li>equities - </li></ul><ul><li>economic hardships </li></ul><ul><li>need for product </li></ul>
    113. 122. <ul><li>bait settlement offer (FRE 408?) </li></ul><ul><li>public interest (medical, safety, defense) </li></ul><ul><li>workaround </li></ul>
    114. 123. <ul><li>THANK YOU! </li></ul>
    115. 124. <ul><li>and remember : </li></ul><ul><li>gesmer.com/mcleseminar </li></ul>

    ×