On Monday, September 24, Knobbe Martens hosted an IP Impact 2012 seminar at the Four Seasons – Palo Alto. Over 85 attendees enjoyed a special presentation by keynote speaker, Mr. Raymond Chen, Deputy General Counsel and Solicitor at the USPTO. Following a short Q&A session with Mr. Chen, Knobbe Martens attorneys Ron Schoenbam and Amy Chun presented on "Latest IP Issues Affecting High-Tech Companies", one of three presentations given during the seminar. View this presentation to learn what hightech companies should be doing to implement the right IP strategy at your company.

1. Latest IP Issues Affecting High-Tech Companies September 24, 2012
Ron Schoenbaum and Amy Chun IP Impact – Silicon Valley
The recipient may only view this work. No other right or license is granted.

2. Apple. v. Samsung
©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & all rights reserved.
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLPBear, LLP all rights reserved. 2

3. Apple Design Pat. D604,305
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 3

4. Apple Design Pat. D604,305
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 4

5. Apple Design Pat. D593,087
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 5

6. Apple’s “Slide to Unlock” patent
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 6

7. Apple Pat. 5,946,647
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 7

8. Apple’s “word suggestions” patent
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 8

9. Apple v. Samsung
A Patent Procurement Perspective
A Litigation Perspective
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 9

10. Divided Infringement
©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & all rights reserved.
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLPBear, LLP all rights reserved. 10

11. Divided Infringement - Akamai & McKesson
Akamai v. Limelight / EXAMPLE
McKesson v. Epic Systems
Method Claim
Method Claims:
Entity A Entity B
Multiple steps where the
steps were performed by Step 1
different entities Step 2
Types of Entities: Step 3
Server/Content Providers
Healthcare
Providers/Patients
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 11

12. Divided Infringement - Direct Infringement
Requirements: EXAMPLE
Infringer performs ALL of the Method Claim
steps
Entity A Entity B
or
Step 1
Agency relationship
between the entities Step 2
Example: Step 3
No direct infringement by
Entity A
No direct infringement by
Entity B
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 12

13. Divided Infringement - Induced Infringement
Requirements: EXAMPLE
Knowledge of the patent Method Claim
Induced the performance of the Entity A Entity B
steps
All steps must be performed Step 1
(but not necessarily by a Step 2
single entity)
Example:
Step 3
Infringement if induced Entity A
and Entity B to perform the 3
steps
Infringement by Entity A if
induced Entity B to perform
Step 2
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 13

14. Divided Infringement - Akamai & McKesson
A Litigation Perspective
A Patent Procurement Perspective
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 14

15. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
©2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & all rights reserved.
©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson & Bear, LLPBear, LLP all rights reserved. 15

16. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Noteworthy Decisions:
• Bilski
• Mayo v. Prometheus
• CLS Bank v. Alice
• Bancorp v. Sun Life
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 16

17. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Where do we stand?
• Period of great uncertainty, especially for
computer-implemented business methods.
• USPTO and courts apply different standards.
• Federal Circuit decisions very panel-dependent.
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 17

18. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
A Litigation Perspective
A Patent Procurement Perspective
© 2012 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 18

19. ron.schoenbaum@knobbe.com
Ron Schoenbaum and Amy Chun
amy.chun@knobbe.com