1 / 22

Patent Litigation (Filing Strategies, Cost Reductions, Claim Drafting)

Patent Litigation (Filing Strategies, Cost Reductions, Claim Drafting). Gerhard LOSENICKY at APO since 1991 Examiner for 15 years since 2006 Department: Patent Support / PCT. topics. Litigation timeline letters court proceedings preliminary injunction nullity Filing Strategies

avi
Télécharger la présentation

Patent Litigation (Filing Strategies, Cost Reductions, Claim Drafting)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Patent Litigation(Filing Strategies, Cost Reductions, Claim Drafting) • Gerhard LOSENICKY • at APO since 1991 • Examiner for 15 years • since 2006 Department: Patent Support / PCT Gerhard Losenicky

  2. topics • Litigation • timeline • letters • court proceedings • preliminary injunction • nullity • Filing Strategies • Cost reduction • Claim drafting Gerhard Losenicky

  3. litigation • 2 types of litigations • infringement (products at the market)lawsuit against someone who brings a copy of a patented product on the market (civil courts, commercial courts) • nullity (patent itself) lawsuit against an existing patent (federal patent court, patent office) Gerhard Losenicky

  4. litigation define strategy patentee a productto market licence agreement bring to court (preliminary injunctions) warning letter notice for production of legitimacy nullity a copy to market torpedo infringer possibilities Gerhard Losenicky

  5. litigation • Notice for production of legitimacy claim • Sure, that the possible infringer has no right to sell the product • In contrast to later warning letter: • No influence to procedural costs, if “infringer” has right to use • Exchange opinions concerning the right to use • Additional information about prior art, right of prior use… • Makes only sense, if patentee intention is to bring case to cort Gerhard Losenicky

  6. litigation • Licence agreement • Litigations are expensive • Nobody can be sure to win lawsuit (->all or nothing) • Competitor does not develop own, new, inventive products • Cross licensing can bring additional technology • Earns money for further developments • Earnings, where is up to now no market for own company Gerhard Losenicky

  7. litigation • Warning letter • Demand to stop selling infringing products • No reaction: • Case can be brought to court • Preliminary injunction might be possible • ! Damages can be entitled, if warning letter is unlawful • ! It can provoke counterclaim to obstruct lawsuit (torpedo) Gerhard Losenicky

  8. litigation • Court proceedings • 60-70 % in Germany - and 60 % of them in Düsseldorf • Procedure • Formal early hearing (after 1-2 months) • Defendant’s response (after 4-5 months) • Plaintiff’s second write (after 7-8 months) • Defendant’s response (after 10-11 months) • hearing (after ~12 months) • Loosing party has to reimburse winner’s costs • € 100.000.- for simple Mechanical matters • € 500.000.- for complex electronic/pharmaceutical matters Gerhard Losenicky

  9. litigation • Preliminary injunctions • Pre-conditions • The technical facts are straightforward / infringement is clear • No reasonable doubts about the validity of the patent • Urgency (patent is about to expire / “torpedo”) • Burden of Proof by applicant • Without hearing / with hearing (if court has doubts) • Duration ~ 2 – 6 months Gerhard Losenicky

  10. litigation • Torpedo • Possible only at EU level (Basis: Art. 27 Council Regulation) • If there is a case on a court in one member state, no further applications in other states in the same case are allowed • Infringer brings case “negative application for a declaration” to a very slow court (e.g. CH and DK) “forum shopping” • Other courts in EU are blocked and have to wait Gerhard Losenicky

  11. litigation • Nullity • Against the patent • Reasons for nullity • Lack of novelty, inventive step and technicality • Insufficient disclosure • Broadening the scope is not allowed • Results • Patent completely invalidated • Patent partly invalidated • Patent completely confirmed Gerhard Losenicky

  12. filing strategies • Filing Strategies (technical IP-rights) • IP rights without a patent or an utility model • IP rights with a patent or an utility model • Open innovation Gerhard Losenicky

  13. filing strategies • IP rights without a patent or an utility model • Disclosure • from publishing day on -> no patent application is possible • if invention is not such important, also competitor cannot file • result is a free use of the invention • Keep secret • dangerous and risky • invention should not be seen in the sold product (reverse engin.) • possibility for methods • Fast change of products (short product cycle) Gerhard Losenicky

  14. filing strategies • IP rights with a patent or an utility model • Filing in states were competitors are • Only a few big competitors (paper machine producers) • Product cannot be produced by the competitor • Filing in states were customers are • Where can I sell my products to a good price • To spare costs, only as few states as necessary • Filing in key-states(a mixture of the 3 above mentioned Gerhard Losenicky

  15. filing strategies • Open innovation(who made the R & D process) • traditional approach (closed innovation) • each company did their own R & D • new products came only from their own R & D department Gerhard Losenicky

  16. filing strategies • traditional approach (closed innovation) • that leads into different isolated company developments Gerhard Losenicky

  17. filing strategies • Open innovation boundary of companies are open • exchange of research results in and out of the company • getting new technologies faster and often cheaper • licensing in and out • file patent application in time Gerhard Losenicky

  18. cost reduction • Cost reduction • Start with national patent application • Normally the cheapest way to get the priority date • Get a national Search Report within the priority year • Result of the Search Report is important for international activities • Continuing with a PCT application • Costs about € 2.800.- but get big gain of time (up to 30/31 months) • Translation in EN, FR or DE necessary (1 month after filing) • 2 ½ years time to file national/regional applications • Time enough to estimate which states are necessary • Filing only in key-states (regional patent offices) • Take care of costs of a patent attorney Gerhard Losenicky

  19. cost reduction PCT – contracting states Gerhard Losenicky

  20. cost reduction PCT* - Patent application DE - patent FR - patent EP - Pat.- Office HU - patent 1 US - Pat.- Office US - patent PCT - procedure ZA - Pat.- Office ZA - patent • Search Report SG - Pat.- Office SG - patent TR - application • publication TR - patent 6 12 18 24 30 36 months 0 priority year *PCT….Patent Cooperation Treaty 1 2 3 Gerhard Losenicky

  21. claim drafting • Claim drafting • Claims have to clearly describe the invention • Only one invention per application • Claims for methods and apparatus • No functional claims allowed • Special fees for large number of claims at EP • 16th to 50th claim - € 210.- for each claim • from the 51 claim - € 525.- for each claim • Other Patent Offices have also special fees (DE, AT) Gerhard Losenicky

  22. Thank you for your attention Gerhard LOSENICKY Tel.: 0043 – 1 – 53424 -372 E-mail: gerhard.losenicky@patentamt.at Gerhard Losenicky

More Related