Patent Litigation RIP (1789-2015) Forum

[rpupkin]

I don't think most are extortion cases. Those typically don't even file. Most settle after markman but that is more than enough work for most biglaw firms. You just do a lot of them. But it's always been like this. Smartphone wars cases were always a tiny minority.

Agree with this.

[patentlitigatrix]

Now at firms that don't want to do low stakes lit, yea patent law is cold right now. But most firms are okay with getting million dollar fee case even if they only last 9 months and settle.

Yeah, this. And just because something settles early doesn't meant it was somehow less valuable than a case that goes to trial. For example, if you can file a killer IPR early in a case, and get the lit stayed, the NPE will often just settle for very little after a strong institution decision. And yeah, that is less fees than a $10M patent trial. But that client will keep coming back to your firm to handle similar matters as well as competitor cases, and some of those cases might end up being pretty large.

[84651846190]

I worked at a firm that thought 10 million dollar cases were small, so my perspective is obviously skewed.

Still, I think there has definitely been a shift, and Law360 said IP litigation budgets are down over the past two years.

[bulinus]

Does anyone care that the first patent legislation wasn't passed until 1790?

[rpupkin]

Does anyone care that the first patent legislation wasn't passed until 1790?

Good catch!!

[Desert Fox]

[patentlitigatrix]

I have a question. What did people with non-tech backgrounds even do on IP cases? Just bullshit discovery letters forever? I understand at the partner level, they don't really need to know the tech, but what were you all doing.

I think the way Law360 described it is probably accurate. The bubble popped. There were several huge juicy cases that are gone and aren't coming back. But it's a return to the norm, not the end of patent litigation.

Not really. I have a technical background, but my background is relevant to only about half the cases I work on. On cases where my background is irrelevant, I have indeed done a lot of discovery letters/MTCs, but also done more fun motion practice (101/dismiss/transfer/stay/fees), run the damages side, taken/defended depos that are not overly technical (damages experts, financial witnesses, marketing witnesses, etc.), some claim construction, and bread and butter trial stuff like MILs, non-tech witness prep, etc. I have also slid into doing more technical tasks when there weren't enough technical folks on the case to do them or the were otherwise slammed on some other matter, like invalidity contentions, invalidity/non-infringement expert reports (admittedly painful), preparing expert witnesses, etc.

[fats provolone]

I have a question. What did people with non-tech backgrounds even do on IP cases? Just bullshit discovery letters forever? I understand at the partner level, they don't really need to know the tech, but what were you all doing.

damages bruh. especially post-virnetx

[Anonymous User]

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/is-paten ... hat-gives/

[fats provolone]

Udupa mentioned a huge case of hers that has dozens of outside lawyers working on it. After reviewing the bill, she contacted the relationship partner and said, “We have a problem. There is one woman associate and two women paralegals on this matter. I want a list of your women IP litigators — and if you don’t have enough, I’m happy to give you the names of some great women you can consider hiring.”

Yes I am sure this is very widespread and will be the death of patent litigation

[auds1008]

Do any of you also do ITC stuff, or is that totally separate? Seems pretty interesting

just faster and you don't have to worry about that damages stuff

your life is hell from the start of discovery all the way til trial, if it gets that far

[Anonymous User]

Udupa mentioned a huge case of hers that has dozens of outside lawyers working on it. After reviewing the bill, she contacted the relationship partner and said, “We have a problem. There is one woman associate and two women paralegals on this matter. I want a list of your women IP litigators — and if you don’t have enough, I’m happy to give you the names of some great women you can consider hiring.”

Yes I am sure this is very widespread and will be the death of patent litigation

Not saying it will be the death of patent lit, but I've heard this before too. Been at two firms. At big-firm A, I was one of three female patent litigators firm-wide. Heard of clients complaining about non-diverse teams. At firm B, we oddly have a lot of female/minority patent litigators, and been on some teams where the only man on the team is the paralegal. Clients have openly complimented the firm for diverse staffing, both from a gender perspective and otherwise.

[gk101]

Udupa mentioned a huge case of hers that has dozens of outside lawyers working on it. After reviewing the bill, she contacted the relationship partner and said, “We have a problem. There is one woman associate and two women paralegals on this matter. I want a list of your women IP litigators — and if you don’t have enough, I’m happy to give you the names of some great women you can consider hiring.”

Yes I am sure this is very widespread and will be the death of patent litigation

I have been on client pitches where client has asked us to provide diversity stats firm wide and for the team working on their case. was hilarious to see the partner squirm and try to justify our terrible diversity numbers

eta: we still got the work so maybe you are right and clients really don't care all that much about diversity etc. either way, this stuff will have no impact on existance of patent litigation work

[Anonymous User]

Udupa mentioned a huge case of hers that has dozens of outside lawyers working on it. After reviewing the bill, she contacted the relationship partner and said, “We have a problem. There is one woman associate and two women paralegals on this matter. I want a list of your women IP litigators — and if you don’t have enough, I’m happy to give you the names of some great women you can consider hiring.”

Yes I am sure this is very widespread and will be the death of patent litigation

I have been on client pitches where client has asked us to provide diversity stats firm wide and for the team working on their case. was hilarious to see the partner squirm and try to justify our terrible diversity numbers

eta: we still got the work so maybe you are right and clients really don't care all that much about diversity etc. either way, this stuff will have no impact on existance of patent litigation work

Yeah it made no sense to me why Lat mentioned this anecdote. Things are tough for white men regardless what practice they're in.

[84651846190]

basically, you should just kill yourself if you're a white male patent litigator in the software space

[sweetscholarlytreats]

basically, you should just kill yourself if you're a white male patent litigator in the software space

finally someone gets it

[ForgotMyPassword]

Ars Technica: Trolls made 2015 one of the biggest years ever for patent lawsuits.

Statistics released today show that 2015 saw more patent lawsuits filed than any other year save one. Buried beneath heaps of high-tech lawsuits—led as usual by "patent trolls," shell companies with no real assets other than patents—are strong trends pushing power away from patent-holders and toward the defendant companies they sue.

If one adds together district court cases with patent disputes that are resolved through the process of "inter partes review," or IPR, a proceeding involving the Patent Trademark and Appeals Board (PTAB) at the US Patent Office, then 2015 saw the most patent disputes in history. If only district court cases are measured, 2013 was the year with the most filings.

...

About two-thirds (66.9%) of all patent lawsuits were filed by patent trolls, also called "non-practicing entities" or NPEs. That's up from 61 percent last year.

About two-thirds of patent lawsuits are filed in the high-tech sector. Of the high-tech cases, more than 88 percent involved NPEs.

The Eastern District of Texas has vastly more patent disputes than any other district court, and the high numbers are driven by NPE litigation. In the Eastern District of Texas, 95 percent of patent cases are initiated by NPEs. In total, 44 percent of the nation's patent litigation was filed in there. Nearly all of it was assigned to a single judge, Marshall-based US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Someone change the thread title to 2016 to give the naysayers another chance.

[SplitMyPants]

Any practitioners care to weigh in on this?:
http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/75531 ... ampaign=ip

[Desert Fox]

Any practitioners care to weigh in on this?:
http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/75531 ... ampaign=ip

Matches what I see day to day. Still tons of NPE work. Most cases do an IPR unless its totally an non-infringement case.

Smartphone wars are over so competitor stuff isn't hot anymore.

I also don't see a hiring bonanza but everyone is slammed.

I think it's a mistake to consider post-grant review stuff to be "just patent office work." It's a key part of litigation now. Firms who don't do it are assfucking themselves. I think that maybe once it becomes standard for your lit and IPR counsel to be one in the same, that IPR billing rates will grow to match litigation. Right now the big patent office firms undercut biglaw firms hard on price. I dunno how they do it.

[rpupkin]

I think it's a mistake to consider post-grant review stuff to be "just patent office work." It's a key part of litigation now. Firms who don't do it are assfucking themselves. I think that maybe once it becomes standard for your lit and IPR counsel to be one in the same, that IPR billing rates will grow to match litigation. Right now the big patent office firms undercut biglaw firms hard on price. I dunno how they do it.

Through a combination of lower profits and--based on what I've seen--less efficiency.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a mistake to consider post-grant review stuff to be "just patent office work." It's a key part of litigation now. Firms who don't do it are assfucking themselves. I think that maybe once it becomes standard for your lit and IPR counsel to be one in the same, that IPR billing rates will grow to match litigation. Right now the big patent office firms undercut biglaw firms hard on price. I dunno how they do it.

Through a combination of lower profits and--based on what I've seen--less efficiency.

Also, pros shops are more likely to put agents on IPRs. It's real easy to make your budget billing 200 an hour.

[Anonymous User]

http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1 ... curindex=0

Thoughts on whether Fish & Richardson is an exception to the rule, or whether Patent Litigation RIP is overblown?

[Desert Fox]

http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1 ... curindex=0

Thoughts on whether Fish & Richardson is an exception to the rule, or whether Patent Litigation RIP is overblown?

I think it's a bit of both. Patent Lit is no longer red hot and can't sustain a lot of megatrials. But there is still a lot of troll work that will keep firms like Fish busy.

[rpupkin]

http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1 ... curindex=0

Thoughts on whether Fish & Richardson is an exception to the rule, or whether Patent Litigation RIP is overblown?

I think it's a bit of both. Patent Lit is no longer red hot and can't sustain a lot of megatrials. But there is still a lot of troll work that will keep firms like Fish busy.

Yeah. Also, there are still competitor cases. The most visible example--Apple v. Everyone Who Uses Android--has died down, but big companies are still suing each for alleged IP violations.

[Desert Fox]

http://www.americanlawyer.com/home/id=1 ... curindex=0

Thoughts on whether Fish & Richardson is an exception to the rule, or whether Patent Litigation RIP is overblown?

I think it's a bit of both. Patent Lit is no longer red hot and can't sustain a lot of megatrials. But there is still a lot of troll work that will keep firms like Fish busy.

Yeah. Also, there are still competitor cases. The most visible example--Apple v. Everyone Who Uses Android--has died down, but big companies are still suing each for alleged IP violations.

Yea it's mostly just the bubble caused by smartphone wars is over.