When amicable efforts fail to resolve a dispute concerning patent rights and the aggrieved party wishes to pursue the matter further, it usually initiates litigation or perhaps a U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) investigation, despite the huge costs of such options, because it may assume no other plausible alternatives exist to achieve the desired objectives.
Articles, such as this one, tout arbitration as an alternative: faster, cheaper and more confidential than litigation, with other benefits as well. Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, having described the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1, et seq.) as evidencing a “national policy favoring arbitration” (Nitro-Lift v. Howard); and recognized “an emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution” (Marmet Health Care v. Brown). Likewise, the Patent Act provides at 35 U.S.C. §294(a) that any arbitration clause contained in a patent agreement shall be presumed valid, irrevocable and enforceable.
However, in actual practice, relatively few patent disputes are submitted to arbitration. Worldwide, only a few hundred requests to arbitrate patent disputes are filed each year. By comparison, in 2012 more than 5,000 patent lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts, not to mention courts of other nations. So what’s the problem? If arbitration is so great, why are so few patent disputes resolved in arbitration? More important, are patent litigants missing something? Should they rely on arbitration more often? Continue reading
Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court approved the payment of $308 million in attorney fees to 116 law firms in a single case (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Cal.), with one firm receiving $75 million in fees and another receiving $49 million. While that case may be an extreme example, the median hourly rate for partners in U.S. law firms is $625 per hour and the average patent lawsuit requires $2.5 million in attorney fees. Is it any wonder people complain about attorney fees?
Fortunately, by managing litigation effectively, those costs can be greatly reduced. For several years I served as Director of Legal at a multi-billion dollar tech company based in Taiwan and was responsible for resolving all disputes and litigation. Cost-down was our corporate mantra, with every invoice closely scrutinized by management. Below are a few of the lessons I learned. Continue reading
On March 28, Apple Inc. appeared in court in Shanghai to defend charges that Siri, its voice-recognition, personal-assistant software, allegedly infringes a Chinese patent. The plaintiff and owner of the patent, Zhizhen Internet Technology Co., claims its version of the software has over 100 million users in China and is requesting the court to ban all manufacturing or sales of Apple’s product in China.
This was not the first time Apple faced patent infringement claims in China. Last summer a Taiwanese man sued the company in China for alleged infringement relating to its Facetime technology; in 2010 a Shenzhen company threatened to sue concerning iPad design; in 2008 Apple was sued for the iPod; and in 2012, a Hong Kong company launched GooPhone I5, an android-based replica of the iPhone 5, reportedly based on leaked photos of the iPhone. GooPhone claimed to have patented the design and threatened to sue Apple if it dared to sell the genuine article in China.
Nor is Apple alone. French company, Schneider Electric lost a $48 million patent infringement verdict in China and Samsung lost one for $7.4 million. Sony, Phillips, Canon and Dell have all had their battles and GooPhone sells knockoffs of other smartphones in China with apparent impunity. Of course it’s possible in some cases the Chinese technology may be first and the Chinese patent legitimate. However, foreign companies face a growing risk that Chinese entities may unscrupulously patent foreign technology in China and demand a toll to do business there. Not only that, but in coming years companies will increasingly face challenges worldwide from the growing landslide of patents coming out of China. Continue reading
As technologies develop, courts worldwide are increasingly open to allowing service of legal documents by new means, including by FedEx, e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. In line with that general trend, last week a District Court in New York authorized service upon certain defendants located in India by means of e-mail and Facebook.
The case, FTC v. PCCare247 Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2013), involves allegations that several individuals located in India operated a scheme that tricked American consumers into spending money to fix non-existent problems with their computers. The FTC applied to the court and obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants’ business practices and freezing some of their assets.
Because India is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, the FTC submitted the Summons and Complaint to the Indian Central Authority, requesting service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 4(f)(1) and Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The FTC also attempted to serve process on the defendants by e-mail, FedEx and personal service. FedEx confirmed delivery for most of the defendants and a process server personally served all of the defendants. Continue reading
In January 2013, Taiwan’s InnoLux Corp. filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit, requesting the Court to overturn an award of enhanced post-judgment (“ongoing”) royalties that appeared to be enhanced, at least in part, because the trial judge took offense at an out-of-court remark made by the defendant’s CEO, after losing at trial.
Specifically, in the case of Mondis Technology v. ChiMei InnoLux Corp., et al., No. 2:11-CV-378 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011), a jury found InnoLux liable for infringing certain computer monitor patents and ordered it to pay $15,000,000 in damages, plus royalties of 0.5% per monitor sold in the final months prior to judgment, for which sales figures had not yet been available.
Following the verdict, the defendant’s CEO was quoted in a Taiwan newspaper as having said, “The issue of patent infringement is being taken too seriously sometimes.” Continue reading
For several years I was the lead attorney at a Taiwan company that manufactures technology and consumer electronic products, from light-emitting diodes to liquid-crystal displays. Every month we received a new demand for patent licensing or indemnification and it was my job to dispose of them at no cost, without licensing, litigation, or outside counsel. Usually it was possible, but occasionally we found ourselves mired in full-blown litigation.
It’s no secret patent litigation costs are immense. According to the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the cost of an average patent lawsuit, where $1 million to $25 million is at risk, is $1.6 million through the end of discovery and $2.8 million through final disposition. Adding insult to injury, more than 60% of all patent suits are filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs) that manufacture no products and rely on litigation as a key part of their business model.
However, whether one represents a plaintiff or defendant, manufacturer or NPE, there are actions one can take to help manage the costs.
Below are some general guidelines. Continue reading
Any litigant in Taiwan who seeks discovery from a U.S. adversary will face serious challenges, because Taiwan’s legal system lacks a formal discovery system. There are no procedures for interrogatories, document production requests or depositions. Moreover, even if a litigant were to apply to the Taiwan judge and obtain an order requiring discovery responses from a U.S. entity, any attempt to enforce that order would have to be made from Taiwan to the U.S. through a cumbersome letters rogatory process.
However, there may be a solution under U.S. law. 28 U.S.C. §1782 states that the U.S. district court where a person or entity is located may order that person or entity to give testimony or produce documents or things, for use in a foreign or international tribunal, upon application of an interested person. So, is that the answer? May a party to legal proceedings in Taiwan use §1782 to obtain discovery from a U.S. party? Perhaps, but subject to certain limitations.
First, there’s the question of whether the demanding party qualifies as an interested person. Fortunately, if the demanding party is a litigant there should be no problem, as the U.S. Supreme Court has explained in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 254 (2004) that, “litigants are included among, and may be the most common example of, the ‘interested person’ who may invoke §1782.” Continue reading
It is common in U.S. patent litigation for a party accused of infringement to seek to depose inventors of the patents-in-suit. If the inventors are officers, directors or managing agents of a party and live or work in the U.S., it should be a routine matter to compel their depositions pursuant to the federal rules of civil procedure (FRCP). If the inventors are located outside the U.S. and do not consent to be deposed, the process is more burdensome, but often their depositions can be compelled pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention or other relevant treaty.
However, the process may be especially difficult if the inventor is located in Taiwan, is unwilling, and is no longer, or never was, employed by a party. First, Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, so any attempt to compel the unwilling witness will have to proceed by way of letters rogatory. Second, if the inventor is not an officer, director or managing agent, the FRCP won’t apply and one must find another legal basis for ordering the testimony.
A number of courts have found that legal basis in the invention assignment agreement that the inventor signed in order to give up his rights in the patent. Invention assignment agreements usually contain language requiring the inventor to render certain assistance to the assignee of the patent. Depending on the particular facts and contract language, it is not unusual for a U.S. court to order a party to produce a foreign inventor to testify at deposition or trial, overseas or in the U.S., based on the notion that the assignment agreement gives the party “control” over the inventor.
What the courts gloss over is the extreme difficulty a party may encounter attempting to compel the inventor to comply with the order if the inventor refuses. In Taiwan, in particular, parties generally lack such control. Continue reading
Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”) often receive short shrift. Business persons plunge into sensitive discussions with third parties without bothering to obtain contractual protection or Legal issues the same NDA in every case, as if one-size-fits-all.
Whether one intends to disclose confidential information to prospective employees, partners, subcontractors, or others, it’s almost always prudent to first obtain a signed NDA. That’s especially true when doing business in Asia, where local laws and practices may pose unique challenges.
Here are 10 tips to help ensure your NDAs will do the job in Asia.
1. Non-Disclosure. The heart of an NDA is language prohibiting the unauthorized use or disclosure of certain information. The drafter of the agreement should first find out what types of information may be disclosed by each party, because the discloser will want stronger protection, while the recipient will want fewer restrictions. The agreement may require the recipient to use at least the same degree of care that it would use to protect its own confidential information, but at least a reasonable degree of care. Usually, the confidentiality obligations should be mutual. Continue reading
Seats are still available for this lively, results-oriented training session in Kuala Lumpur on October 24 & 25.
Hi. I’m Chris Neumeyer, Managing Partner of Asia Law and an international lawyer with more than 20 years of experience negotiating and drafting complex commercial and corporate agreements. I just returned from Bangkok, where I led this same lively two-day training course last week. Participants came from diverse functions and industries, but all came away with an increased awareness of key issues and tactics in contract negotiations, improved ability to achieve results and eagerness to put it into practice.
If you may wish to attend this training in KL on October 24-25 or have any questions, please write to marketing@VMACgroup.com or firstname.lastname@example.org, but please hurry as spaces are filling up fast. Continue reading