Strategic Considerations in Choosing Your Patent Litigation Venue

Strategic Considerations in Patent Litigation Venues

A LexisNexis® Webinar

These slides accompany the Webinar recorded on November 13, 2013.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/161179/#page6

DISTRICT COURTv.

USPTOv.

ITC

Strategic Considerations in Patent Litigation Venues

Ethan HorwitzDMSLIBRARY01-22047979.1

4

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS IN PATENT LITIGATION VENUES

• Characteristics of the Venues

• New (and Old) USPTO Proceedings

• Issues

• Balancing the Issues

5

CHARACTERISTICS OFTHE ITC

• Domestic Industry

• Imports Only

• No Jury

• Speed

• No Stays

• No Effective Counterclaims

• In Rem Jurisdiction

• Joinder

6

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE USPTO

• Amend/clarify claims

• Speed (sometimes)

• Burden of Proof

• Limited Discovery

• Limited to Validity

• Estoppel Effect (sometimes)

• Limited Bases (some)

• No Live Testimony (usually)

• Less Expensive

• Cleansing of Patent

7

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DC

• Jury

• Damages

• Speed/Slowness (Depending on where)

• Counterclaims

• Burden of Proof

• eBay Considerations for Injunctions

• Multi District Consolidation

8

PTO PROCEEDINGS BY PATENT OWNER

• Reissue

• Supplemental Examination

• Ex Parte Reexam

9

PTO PROCEEDINGS BYTHIRD PARTIES

• Ex Parte Reexam

• Post Grant Review

• Inter Partes Review

• Derivation Proceedings

• Covered Business Method Proceedings

10

ISSUES• Markman

• Burden of Proof

• Cost

• Speed

• Stays

• Counterclaims

• Jury

• Damages• Effect of PTO

Decisions on Trials

• Discovery• Expense

11

BALANCING THE ISSUES

• Neutral Balancing

• Patent Owner Balancing

• Accused Infringer Balancing

www.lexisnexis.com/ipsolutions