PDF: SCOTUS Ruling – BILSKI ET AL. v. KAPPOS, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mechanisms That Help Reduce the Cost of E-Discovery | NJ Law Journal

No matter how vigilant, there is no way to fully insulate yourself from a potential lawsuit. It should come as no surprise that defending a lawsuit, even one where you are ultimately not liable, can be costly. Advancements in technology, including the ubiquitous use of e-mail, can significantly increase the cost of litigation. With all of the unavoidable expenses associated with litigation, in these economic times it is necessary to implement mechanisms that help curtail the cost of litigation, especially with regard to electronic discovery.

RELEVANT COURT RULES REGARDING E-DISCOVERY

Courts have recognized the importance of technological advancements in litigation by implementing rules that require parties to produce electronic information in discovery. Indeed, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the New Jersey Rules of Court (collectively, the “court rules”) require parties to produce their electronically stored information during litigation. Federal Rules 26(a)(1) and N.J. Rules 4:18-1(a).

In federal actions, parties are required to disclose, among other things, documents and other objects within their possession that may be used to support their claims or defenses prior to receiving a discovery request. Federal Rules 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). As of December 1, 2006, the term “documents” has been expanded to include ESI among the type of information and documents produced in litigation. Similarly, the N.J. Rules provide that a party may request ESI from its adversary. N.J. Rules 4:18-1(a).

Although not formally defined in either set of the court rules, in practice it is understood that ESI includes information “created, manipulated, communicated, stored, and best utilized in digital form, requiring the use of computer hardware and software.” “Electronically Stored Information: The December 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Kenneth J. Withers, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol.4 (2), 171, 173. Although the most commonly requested form of ESI is e-mail, the court rules require production of electronic data in formats other than e-mail.

The court rules have attempted to provide some limitations to the production requirements of electronic discovery, presumably in an effort to achieve fairness and balance. For example, in the context of a federal case, “[a] party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Federal Rules 26(b)(2)(B). However, even with limitations, the production of ESI can be very expensive and onerous.

via Mechanisms That Help Reduce the Cost of E-Discovery.

Israel Tech Deals: IP Laws Power Nano-Nation | Westlaw Business

IP pours forth from Israel, boosting both M&A and legal activity centered on technology. Companies like CheckPoint, Teva and Vishay are the result. IP creation is driven by its IP-fostering laws, its benign IP litigation context (benign being relative), and the noted inventiveness of its citizenry.

For those unfamiliar with the good-news story emanating from this part of the Middle East: Nearly 62 years ago, “nano” nation Israel was born. Notwithstanding its barely-hospitable environment, this nation has transformed itself into a virtual high tech powerhouse. Fostered in part by government agencies, it’ become a global leader in communications, electronics, and the life sciences, among others.

This article explores the legal framework applicable to Israel’s technology transfer regime, how it impacts intellectual property (“IP”) acquisitions by non-Israeli entities, and briefly examines the Israeli litigation landscape surrounding its technology.

via Israel Tech Deals: IP Laws Power Nano-Nation.

Federal Circuit Ruling May Rein In Patent Re-Examinations | Law.com

Patent Office relief on the Herbert C. Hoover ...
Image via Wikipedia

A federal appeals court ruling may curb the growing trend of using re-examinations to challenge other parties’ patents.

In In Re Suitco Surface Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejection of some claims in a patent re-examination. The PTO’s interpretation of Suitco’s patent claim for “material for finishing the top surface of the floor” was “unreasonably broad,” wrote Circuit Judge Randall Rader.

Rader noted that case law requiring the PTO to give claims “their broadest reasonable construction” does not give the PTO “an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention,” Rader wrote. “Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.”

Suitco will be a frequently cited case for patent lawyers helping clients fight re-examinations, said Steven Moore, an intellectual property litigation partner in the Stamford, Conn., office of New York’s Kelley Drye & Warren, who was not involved in the case.

“It’s a fight that we all have with the patent office,” Moore said. “If it’s in your specification and you’ve used it in a particular manner, that’s what should rule, not this broadest-interpretation concept.”

Seeking a re-examination of the patent is “almost a knee jerk reaction” for defendants in patent infringement cases, he added.

“With the number of re-exams being allowed by the patent office, if you’re in litigation you almost always have a re-exam,” Moore said.

via Law.com – Federal Circuit Ruling May Rein In Patent Re-Examinations.