Patent Issues for Telecom and VoIP Clients William B. Wilhelm, Jr. Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Licensing Issues Research In Motion Limited ETSI IPRR#01 meeting January 2006.
Advertisements

A GIA is a contract between a surety company and a contractor (or subcontractor)/principal. A GIA is a standard, typical document in the construction.
© 2007 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising The Global Law Firm for Israeli Companies Dramatic Changes in U.S. Patent Litigation.
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
What You Need to Know About Biosimilars: Products, Recent Deals, IP Issues and Licensing August 2, 2012 Madison C. Jellins 1.
© 2007 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising The Global Law Firm for Israeli Companies Dispute Resolution in the United States.
Page 1 Recording of this session via any media type is strictly prohibited. Financial Services Industry Session (IND 007) Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 9:00-11:00.
© 2005 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Offense as Defense in U.S. Patent Litigation Anthony L. Press Maximizing IP Seminar October 31, 2005.
Patent Portfolio Management By: Michael A. Leonard II.
Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.
Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.
Litigation and Alternatives for Settling Civil Disputes CHAPTER FIVE.
Cross-Licensing Technology Agreements Spring 2005 Pete Perlegos
Patent Law A Career Choice For Engineers Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25, 2008 Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25,
Chapter 16 Lesson 1 Civil and Criminal Law.
IPR Litigation System & Recent Case in Korea Hee-Young JEONG Judge of Daejeon District Court, KOREA April 22, 2015.
Hot Topics in Open Source Licensing Robert J. Scott Managing Partner Scott & Scott, LLP.
1 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 2 Texas Education Agency provides Notice of Procedural Safeguards Rights of Parents of Students with Disabilities Download this.
Importation and Injunctions Patent Law Bayer v Housey Screening technique Looking for “agents” that inhibit or promote activity of a “protein.
1 Computer Networks Switching Technologies. 2 Switched Network Long distance transmission typically done over a network of switched nodes End devices.
EBay vs. MercExchange IEOR 190 G 3/16/2009Rani. eBay vs. MercExchange (May 2006) With eBay, (Supreme Court unanimously decided that) Injunctions should.
Agustin Del Rio CalNet ID: Date: October 27th, 2008.
A New Pathway for Follow-on Biologics Presented by: Steve Nash May 7, 2010.
Indiana Patent Troll Statute for Demand Letters HEA Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement.
Data Communications and Networking
Saumil Shah IEOR 190G 3/19/08.  Vonage is a VoIP(voice over IP) company that provides telephone service via a broadband connection.  In order to use.
SBZL IP LAW FIRM We bring IP Patent & Trademark Protection in CHINA.
Teachers and the Law, 8 th Edition © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Teachers and the Law, 8e by David Schimmel, Leslie R. Stellman,
Think IP Strategy Trusted advisors to the world’s most innovative companies Brisbane Beijing Chicago Goteborg Hyderabad Johannesburg Melbourne Mumbai Washington.
Federal Civil Practice Seminar Case Study – Multi Jurisdictional Patent Litigation Ronald A. Christaldi October 11,
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
©2006 Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Looking Both Ways Before You Cross the Street: How to Leverage Outside Patent Counsel 2006 APPA LEGAL SEMINAR October.
Hot Issues in Patent Law Steven G. Saunders
Hypothetical Company A owns a patent that is essential to a wireless standard. Company A has made a commitment to a standard-setting organization to license.
Emerging Technologies. Emerging Technology Overview  Emerging technologies are those which are just beginning to be adopted or are at the initial acceptance.
Court Procedures Chapter 3.
The American Court System Chapter 3. Why Study Law And Court System? Manager Needs Understanding Managers Involved In Court Cases As Party As Witness.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Updates on the USPTO Chris Fildes AIPLA-JPAA Joint Meeting April 9, 2013.
The Challenge of Rule 26(f) Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer July 15, 2011.
SIP-ify the Base Jon R. Doyle VP Business Development CommuniGate Systems.
VoIP Regulation: State and Federal Developments MARK J. O’CONNOR Lampert, O’Connor & Johnston, P.C. Session EI-05 January 23, :30 – 2:15 pm.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
Internet telephony
Virtual Business Virtual Communication Copyright © Texas Education Agency, All rights reserved.
Microsoft vs. Eolas Presented by Dylan Caponi on December 1, 2008 UC Berkeley IEOR190G.
Patent Cases MM 450 Issues in New Media Theory Steve Baron March 3, 2009.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Software Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of.
Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.
© 2007 Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved. What is a Civil Case?
Patent Cases IM 350 Lamoureux & Baron Sept. 6, 2009.
Overview of the FTC’s 2003 Proposed Reforms to U.S. Patent Law David W. Hill.
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Recent Japanese Cases Regarding Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing Declaration AIPLA-IPHC Meeting April 11, 2013 Shinji ODA Judge, Intellectual.
Patent Infringement MM450 March 30, What is Patent Infringement? Making, using or selling an invention on which a patent is in force without the.
DMCA Notices and Patents CasesMM450 February, 2008 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious…
Class II Charles University – Law Faculty October 2012 © Peter Kolker 2012.
Patent Enforcement & Forum Shopping in China Liu, Shen & Associates: Jun Qiu September 2014.
EU-China Workshop on the Chinese Patent Law 24/25 September 2008 Topic IV: Legal Consequences of Invalidity of a Patent Prof. Dr. Christian Osterrieth.
Judicial Review The Supreme Court’s power to overturn any law that it decides is in conflict with the Constitution.
The Applicability of Patent-Agent Privilege After In re Queen’s University at Kingston Presented by Rachel Perry © 2016 Workman Nydegger.
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement: Halo v. Pulse
America Invents Act: Litigation Related Provisions
Let’s Begin w/ the Basics
ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEMINARO
Examining the Federal Court System
Civil Pretrial Practice
Payment Patent Infringement
Each state has its own judicial system that hears nonfederal cases
Presentation transcript:

Patent Issues for Telecom and VoIP Clients William B. Wilhelm, Jr. Bingham McCutchen LLP

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 1 The Verizon - Vonage Decision –Verizon - Vonage Patent Litigation Status and next steps, Lessons, Impact –Scope of the Verizon Patents Coverage, work-arounds and potential invalidity –Other Patent Portfolios –Lessons for clients / advisors Overview

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 2 The Verizon - Vonage Decision Verizon sued Vonage for infringement of 7 patents in the Eastern District of Virginia Went to trial on 5 patents in < 1 year Jury found infringement of claims in 3 patents Infringed patents: (1) 6,104,711; (2) 6,282,574; and (3) 6,359,880 No infringement found on: (1) 6,137,869; and (2) 6,430,275. Verizon dropped U.S. Patent Nos. 6,298,062 and 6,128,304 just prior to trial Jury also found no claims of the 5 Verizon patents invalid The Complaint and Result

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 3 Result and Next Steps Damages: $58 million for past infringement; 5.5 % royalty on future sales Permanent injunction issued on March 23 Partial stay granted April 6, allowing Vonage existing customers but not new customers Emergency Relief / Review from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted on April 6 - Hearing on April 24 $66 million appeal bond + Royalty The Verizon - Vonage Decision

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 4 Effect of Litigation on Enforcement of the Patents Patents become stronger through successful litigation Judge agreed with Verizon’s interpretation of the scope of its patents at the Markman hearing Jury trial victory establishes the patents as relevant to VoIP community Verizon may be emboldened to enforce its portfolio against other players The Verizon - Vonage Decision

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 5 Trial Snapshot and Lessons Verizon portrayed Vonage as: –Stealing technology patented technology from Verizon –As a company that did not innovate and had no patents of its own –As a company solely driven by a profit motive –As an irresponsible company that did not bother to check whether its service would infringe anyone else’s patents The Verizon - Vonage Decision

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 6 The Verizon - Vonage Decision Trial Snapshot and Lessons Vonage tried to portray: –Verizon as a coming late to the VoIP party –The patents as covering something totally different than Vonage’s system No substantial invalidity defense was put on! The Court’s broad Markman decision on the scope of the patents issued just before trial largely determined the outcome

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 7 Scope of the patents USP 6,359,880 - Wireless –Claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 found infringed –Covers implementing wireless telephone communication in a packet switched network. –Focus is on locating or registering a wireless telephone with a wireless gateway system and routing between a packet switched network and a wireless telephone –Design Around / Invalidity The Verizon - Vonage Decision

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 8 Scope of the patents 6,104,711 and 6,282, Name Translation –Both patents found infringed –‘574 patent, claim 27 infringed (30 total claims) –Infringed claim covers a 3 step method of 1.receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet switched network; 2.translating a name into a destination telephone number; 3.transmitting a reply containing the destination telephone number and packet address of a telephone gateway between the PSTN and the packet switched network. –Court interpreted “name” broadly to include a telephone number or other identifier of a party The Verizon - Vonage Decision

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 9 The Verizon - Vonage Decision Scope of the patents 6,104,711 and 6,282, Name Translation –Certain claims not explicitly limited to “public” networks –‘711 patent, claim 20 infringed (37 total claims) –Infringed Claim covers a 3 step method of receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet switched network; executing a conditional analysis and translating the name into a first or second “destination address” based on the analysis; transmitting a reply containing the destination telephone number and packet address of a telephone gateway between the PSTN and the packet switched network. second destination address includes information relating to routing via the PSTN

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 10 The Verizon - Vonage Decision Scope of the patents USPs 6,137,869 and 6,430,275 –Neither found infringed –Cover call session management for authenticating a subscriber and routing calls in a hybrid circuit switched and packet switched network. –They include in various aspects creating call records, tracking information like length and price of the call and techniques for least cost routing and fraud prevention.

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 11 The Verizon - Vonage Decision Scope of the patents USP 6,298,062 and 6,128,304 –Dropped prior to trial –Cover call forwarding in a packet-switched network to, for example, forward a call to voic when subscriber line is unavailable

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 12 The Verizon - Vonage Decision How does this affect VoIP Players? Verizon asserts its patents are broadly relevant to VoIP Should obtain copies of the patents and assess relevance to operations Work with a patent attorney on matters of interpretation and applicability of patents Consider getting exculpatory opinions to have in the file to avoid willful infringement Consider contributory infringement issues when dealing with third parties

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 13 Check indemnities with vendors Consider design changes to avoid conflict Seek patents on design changes, innovations Collect prior art that is relevant, but not considered by the Patent Office Keep track of other Patent Holders The Verizon - Vonage Decision How does this affect VoIP Players?

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 14 More patents are being asserted and litigated in the VoIP space The emergence of the industry invites these lawsuits Other Portfolios 1.Klausner Sued AOL seeking $200 million in damages Settled with AOL Litigating with Vonage now in ED Texas Patents cover visual and selective access to voic through a list The Verizon - Vonage Decision Other Portfolios?

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA Sprint Litigating with Vonage now in Kansas 7 patents in portfolio, all in the same "family.“ They are generally directed to establishing paths through asynchronous transfer protocol (ATM) networks and allow switching through ATM fabrics on a call by call basis, as opposed to routing all traffic through permanent virtual paths. The patents are most relevant to the extent that VOIP traffic is routed through ATM networks or network segments. The Verizon - Vonage Decision Other Portfolios?

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA Rates Technology Litigating with several companies. Prefers to offer license/settlement, but sues quickly in ED NY if settlement breaks down Patents relate to least cost routing Widely licensed prior to VoIP Gerry Weinberger targeting VoIP players 4. Web Telephony Litigating against Verizon, Vonage, Sun Rocket and others in Texas Patent covers using web browser to selectively route calls The Verizon - Vonage Decision Other Portfolios?

January 23-25, 2008 Miami Beach Convention Center Miami, Florida USA 17 –Need to be aware of the portfolios –Clearance of products and services is recommended to reduce risk –Litigation risk has increased after the Verizon case and with increasing success of the industry T he Verizon - Vonage Decision Conclusions