“Ethical Issues in Jury Cases” – PLI’s Patent Litigation: Advanced Techniques & Best Practices seminar – November 14-15, 2018

I will be speaking again this year at PLI’s Patent Litigation 2018 in New York City on November 14-15, 2018 on the subject of ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media.  My co-presenter on the subject will be Suann Ingle with Suann Ingle Associates/Decisive Trial Design.
Topics to be addressed in the seminar will include:
  • Demonstration of an effective opening statement
  • Recent developments affecting patent litigation practice and case strategies
  • Multi-party litigation, joint defense groups, indemnification, and indirect and divided infringement claims
  • Patent monetization and litigation finance, patent litigation, parallel PTO proceedings and business considerations
  • Patent remedies: damages, injunctions and ongoing royalties where an injunction is not granted
Special Features include:
  • Ethical issues in jury cases, including the role of social media (one hour of Ethics credit) (yes, that’s us)
  • District Court Judges share their views on managing patent litigation, recent trends, and tips for efficient case disposition (featuring two separate Judges sessions, including Judge Nicole Mitchell from the Eastern District of Texas)
We are told not to overlap with other panels, so I have been careful not to tell Judge Mitchell any of my recent stories involving trials, ethical issues, or social media so she doesn’t misappropriate them for her panels.  Not that she’d do so intentionally, of course, but you know, you can’t unhear a good story.
It’s going to be a fun couple of days, and there are a few things to do when you’re in the neighborhood, so we might get out and see a play or look for a good bottle of wine.  I’m not optimistic about finding any decent barbecue, but you never know.

Texas Bar Journal – 2018 Patent Litigation update (forthcoming)

I’m hard at work again on this year’s patent litigation update for January’s Texas Bar Journal.  I have an idea what I want to talk about, but I’m interested incomments from blog readers.  Are there particular cases or trends you think have affected patent litigation in Texas in the past year? There have been a few tweaks to the venue analysis from the Federal Circuit, but filings have been relatively this year at the new levels, so I think we need to focus on litigation under the new levels or new caselaw.

Thoughts? Comments?

2018 EDTX Bench Bar – Day 3 – more dual tracks

The third day began with a pair each of patent and nonpatent options:

  • Artificial Intelligence – by former PTO director Michelle Lee
  • Local rules – moderated by me with an all-star panel
  • Decisionmaking & Bias
  • When You Find Out DoJ is Investigating your Client
  • Trade Secret Protections
  • Corporate Cyber Threats

The tracks then converged for a panel on the Fifth Circuit moderated by Chief Judge Gilstrap with Honorary Texan (and chief judge) Carl Stewart and Judge Catharina Haynes.  We then had a panel on local issues as seen from the perspective of in house counsel, and an interactive (and anonymous) segment on trial lawyers’ dual masters, judges and in house counsel.

I would write more, but I am just too damn tired.

2018 EDTX Bench Bar – Inaugural Texas Dinner in Honor of the Judiciary and the 7th Amendment; PTO Director Iancu remarks

The highlight of this year’s bench/bar conference was the inaugural Texas reception and dinner in honor of the judiciary and the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution at AT&T Stadium.  The stadium was a big hit with attendees, who got to see themselves entering the field from the tunnel of the 150′ monitors over the field.

The program itself was great.  We were welcomed to the stadium by former Dallas Cowboys great Calvin Hill, who was the first to note the significance of the Constitution.  He was followed by S.C. Gwynne, who told the story of the reinvention of football from his book The Perfect Pass.   

He was followed by a special surprise presentation by Chief Judge Gilstrap to Chief Judges Carl Stewart of the Fifth Circuit and Sharon Prost of the Federal Circuit.  Judge Gilstrap unveiled framed “Honorary Texan” certificates for both signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

The keynote address for the evening was by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who encouraged us to “[s]tep into the forests of discovery and innovation” and to focus on policies that encourage innovation. “Scaring our inventors and entrepreneurs is harmful,” he said, as is scaring policymakers.  Instead, he argued that we should work together to find narrowly tailored measures to correct faults in the patent system without harming innovation, and protect the innovation ecosystem by challenging harmful rhetoric. His remarks can be read in full here.

Director Iancu’s remarks were not made in a vacuum – their significance is set out in Richard Lloyd’s article here.

The evening concluded with the inaugural toast in honor of the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2018 Bench Bar – Thursday Afternoon Patent/NonPatent Tracks

Thursday afternoon attendees had a choice of barbecue or Asian food, and the buffet continued with the panels, with four dealing with patent topics and four nonpatent. The patent tracks were: – Patent Litigation Post SAS – Extraterritorial Remedies – Trying Complicated or Technical Patent Cases – Hatch-Waxman cases Meanwhile, across the hall extra chairs had to be brought in for the nonpatent topics: – New U.S. Attorney Rountable Discussion – Qui Tam Cases & The False Claims Act – Proving “False” Under the False Claims Act – Why Parties File in the Eastern District

2018 EDTX Bench Bar – “Lessons From My Cousin Vinny” – USDJ Joseph F. Anderson, Jr (DSC)

A highlight of Thursday is the lunch presentation “Lessons From My Cousin Vinny” by USDJ Joseph F. Anderson, Jr (DSC). Judge Anderson went through scenes from the film and other examinations to show what works and what doesn’t (and what is funny as hell).

Like many practitioners, I’ve seen quite a bit of “MCV” presentations.  This was the best.

2018 EDTX Bench Bar – Day 2 – morning

The bench bar was formally opened this morning by Chief Judge Gilstrap.  The panels for the morning have been:

– Patent damages

– Patent Litigation from the Federal Circuit’s perspective – with CAFC judges Prost, O’Malley & Taranto

– General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

– Supreme Court Update re: Patents – Tom Goldstein

– Venue Filing Statistics

– Venue in EDTX Post-TC Heartland

2018 EDTX Bench Bar – day 1

This year’s bench/bar kicked off this morning with a PTAB Bench/Bar in conjunction with the Center for American and International Law’s Institute for Law and Technology.  That was followed by a shooting excursion of the Frisco Gun Club and golf tournament at Gleneagles (which has a location change due to rain), and the Women Lawyers of the Eastern District of Texas (WLED) lunch.

The afternoon sessions were joint with the PTAB neck/bar, and consisted of five panels, which were:

  • Managing Parallel District Court and PTAB Proceedings (three panels focusing on stays, discovery, claim construction, estoppel, prosecution disclaimer, and best practices)
  • Patent Reform and the AIA
  • What Are In-House Counsel Looking for in Lead Trial Counsel?

The five sessions will be followed by a reception and then dinner on your own with the exception of the former law clerks and judges/bar leaders dinner.

EDTX Court Profile Provides Comparative Data Versus Other Districts in Patent Cases

It never fails – I’m on my way out the door to this year’s bench/bar when I get an email that Docket Navigator’s new “Court Profiles” are out, and the EDTX findings are just too significant to put off posting about till later today. They deal with EDTX relative to other districts on determinations of invalidity, infringement, and findings for patentees and patent challengers – and they aren’t the conventional wisdom.

N.D. Cal. on Joining Owners in Section 285 Proceedings

It was not quite two years ago when Judge Gilstrap ordered the nonparty owner of an unsuccessful patent plaintiff made a party for purposes of a motion for attorneys fees under Section 285 in Iris Connex.  That proceeding eventually generated an unappealed-from order making the owner jointly and severally liable for over $500,000, which I posted on here.

Hat tip to Rachael Lamkin for noting a recent similar decision from the Northern District of California, which is worth some analysis.