Category Archives: Intellectual Property

Battling Trade Secret Theft in Taiwan

Posted on by
Reply

Here we go again. Last week, police detained three employees of Taiwanese smartphone-maker HTC, raided their homes and offices and seized their computers and cellphones to search for evidence, as HTC is accusing them of stealing sensitive technology to use in competition with HTC in China.

The three men – a vice president of product design, director of R&D, and senior designer – are accused of stealing secrets relating to HTC’s Sense 6.0 smartphones, which are scheduled for launch later this year. While the investigation is just beginning, reports have accused the three of collaborating with officials in Chengdu, China to form a competing smartphone company in China using the secrets stolen from HTC. They are also accused of defrauding HTC out of more than US$650,000, by use of forged documents, apparently to raise capital for their new venture.

Taiwan has seen similar cases before. In 2012, the nation’s second largest LCD panel-maker, AU Optronics (AUO), sued two of its former high-level executives for stealing trade secrets, which they took to their new employer, a major competitor in China. In 2011, Taiwan IC-design company, MediaTek, sued a former employee for stealing secrets and sharing them with his new employer. And, most famously, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) battled with its Chinese rival, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), for almost a decade over allegations that SMIC poached numerous employees, who stole critical information that SMIC used to illegally manufacture competing products. Continue reading →

Software May be Patented in Asia, but the Details Remain Unclear

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States, attorneys, judges and others have struggled for decades to determine when, if ever, computer programs or software should be eligible for patent protection. In the 1960’s the U.S. Patent Office declared that software could not be patented. Since then, a series of court decisions have rejected that view and established that one may definitely patent software in the U.S., although the exact requirements remain unclear and critics increasingly demand that it should not be patentable.

As a starting point, 35 U.S.C. §101 provides that any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or new and useful improvement thereof, is eligible for patent protection, subject to other requirements of the Patent Act (that is, §101 is just the threshold test for patentability). Congress has never stated any limitations to the patentable categories of §101 and case law has only recognized three categories of exceptions – subject matter that may not be patented: laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas. Computer software is often found to be ineligible on the ground that it comprises abstract ideas, but courts have struggled to provide a precise formula or definition for abstract ideas. Continue reading →

Think Patent Arbitration Can’t Work? Think Again.

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Design Patents in China: Applications, Infringement and Enforcement

Posted on by
Reply

Design patents have been making the news. Last summer, Apple’s $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung was famously based, in part, on the finding that Samsung infringed Apple’s rounded-rectangle and edge-to-edge glass designs. Since then, Yamaha, Thule, Oakley, Nike and Spanx, to name just a few, have litigated in the U.S. over the design of headphones, ski racks, sunglasses, footwear and women’s undergarments. And just last month, former head of the USPTO, David Kappos, published an OpEd piece describing design as “the new frontier of intellectual property.”

Nothing has fundamentally changed about the nature of design patents. The first US design patent was granted in 1842. The Statue of Liberty, Coke bottle, Volkswagen Beatle, Stealth Bomber and Star Wars’ Yoda are all protected by design patents. Design patents have long played an important role in consumer electronics, automotive, apparel, jewelry, packaging and other industries.

But industrial design is becoming increasingly important, Mr. Kappos explains, because the increasing functionality of man-made devices brings with it increasing complexity, so innovative companies are constantly seeking superior designs, a convergence of form and function that helps make the complex simple and sets their companies apart; and protecting such designs is critical.

While that explanation sounds reasonable, in China there are additional factors and – as always – the picture is complex and uncertain, but it is perfectly clear that companies doing business in China, from manufacturing to sales, should seriously consider the roles design patents can play with respect to brand protection, counterfeiting and unscrupulous business practices. Continue reading →

China’s Great Leap Forward in Patents

Posted on by
2

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 →

Managing Costs of Patent Litigation

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Ten Tips for Successful Outbound Technology Licensing

Posted on by
Reply

In this age of endless corporate cost-cutting, it might seem the only way to compel a company to license ones technology is through litigation or threats of litigation. After all, why would a company agree to pay large sums of hard-earned dollars for the use of intangible property unless it absolutely has to?

Well, they do. While patent lawsuits grab the big headlines, plenty of licensing takes place without threats or coercion. Often it results from business discussions between willing participants. The licensor may be unwilling or unable to fully develop and commercialize its technology, while the licensee may believe use of the technology will generate increased revenue or other benefits that should outweigh the costs of licensing.

Take Microsoft, for example. They license out a variety of technologies that improve the performance of computers, monitors, keyboards and more. But, they hit a jackpot with their android patents, licensing their technology to cell phone manufacturers who paid more than $400 million in licensing revenue in 2012. Or consider IBM, Intel, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments, each generating roughly $1 billion in annual licensing revenue. Of course, those are extreme cases, but the point is licensing deals are often entered into not in response to litigation but as a strategic, mutually-beneficial business transaction.

Of course, it’s not easy locating potential licensing partners and convincing them that paying royalties makes business sense. In fact, it usually requires a great deal of work. But, technology licensing agreements are often negotiated as a business deal, with the licensor wielding a carrot not a stick, sparing both parties the stress and expense of litigation. I know, because my former employer, on several occasions, succeeded in doing the same.

Here are 10 tips intended to help your company out-license its technology through business means. Continue reading →

Strategic Monetization of Patents

Posted on by
Reply

The value of all U.S. generated intellectual property is said to be approximately $5.5 trillion, equal to nearly 40% of the U.S. economy. From time to time that value is dramatically demonstrated, such as when Apple wins a $1 billion patent infringement verdict against Samsung, when Nortel sells a portfolio of patents for $4.5 billion, or when Google acquires Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, to gain control of its patents.

However, for many companies the cost of obtaining and maintaining intellectual assets – in particular patents – may be a huge waste of corporate resources, either because the company files patents indiscriminately, without sufficient consideration for which technologies, markets and regions may be most deserving of investment, or because it fails to devise and implement a sound plan for monetization of the patents.

Monetization of a patent portfolio usually begins with an IP audit. Working with the company’s business units and engineers, one should evaluate the company’s patents and divide them into three or four categories: those which are presently being used by the company; those which are not being used, but might have value to others; and those which are not being used and appear to have little value. One may also distinguish between patents that relate to the company’s core v. non-core technologies. Continue reading →

Compelling Involuntary Depositions of Inventors in Taiwan

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Patent v. Trade Secret: Which is better?

Posted on by
3

A few weeks ago, Taiwan’s second largest LCD panel-maker, AU Optronics (AUO), accused two of its former executives of selling AUO’s valuable manufacturing secrets to China’s second largest panel-maker, China Star Optoelectronics. AUO sued and Taiwan’s authorities launched a criminal investigation, but the former workers have both accepted employment with China Star and now AUO will presumably face a tough battle to prevent its competitor from using its secrets.

Some may wonder, if the secrets were so valuable why didn’t AUO patent them? After all, patents – not trade secrets – seem to make all the big headlines and manufacturing processes are patentable in most countries, provided they meet the basic requirements for patentability.

The answer is that patents tend to capture more glory than trade secrets, but each method of protection has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Neither is superior in all cases. A prudent company will choose one method or the other, in each particular case, based on a careful analysis of various factors. Continue reading →