April 2, 2020

April 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

April 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 31, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Infringement Contentions: Fair Notice?

Some respondents at the ITC have taken advantage of using infringement contentions as a procedural tool to deny patent owners from getting their day in court.  In some investigations, respondents have gone so far as to delay their own production of discovery until after the infringement contention deadline, then claim lack of fair notice when the patent owner uses the late discovery in its expert report.  This gamesmanship, and its potential repercussions, adds dimensions of procedural complexity to representing patent owners at the ITC. 

ALJ Elliot’s recent decision in Certain Touch-Controlled Mobile Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-1162) may tip the balance away from respondents trying to use infringement contentions as a vehicle to unduly restrict patent owners and more in favor of the gatekeeper function originally intended.  In this case, ALJ Elliot denied Amazon, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Microsoft, Motorola, and Samsung’s (collectively, “Respondents”) motion to strike portions of Neodron Ltd.’s (“Neodron” or “Complainant”) expert report on infringement.

The thrust of Respondents’ line of attack was that the infringement contentions were devoid of the source code citations and narrative concerning how the claim limitations were met found in the expert report.  What Respondents missed, however, was that “experts may reasonably elaborate on a party’s contentions and experts are not precluded from identifying additional technical details, such as source code, to support their opinions.” Order 23 at 2.  In this case, for example, the absence of the source code citations in the infringement contentions was not dispositive as to whether Respondents were put on fair notice of the theories of infringement. To the contrary, the ALJ found that Neodron’s expert reports “properly elaborated on functions and features that Neodron identified in its contentions” Id. Accordingly, “there [were] no opinions that [were] wholly outside the scope of [Neodron’s] disclosed contentions.” Id. at 3. The ALJ went further and pointed out that “parties should reasonably expect expert report to contain opinions that are more detailed than a party’s contention interrogatory responses.” Id. at 4.

ALJ Elliot’s decision also underscores that a party’s delay in addressing an alleged deficiency can undermine later claims of undue prejudice.  In this case, there were indications that the respondents knew that the source code described the structure and operation of the accused products, but said nothing about lack of specific source code citations when the infringement contentions were served.  ALJ Elliot emphasized that Respondents had some affirmative obligation to seek discovery if they had concerns on deficiencies in Neodron’s contentions, including the need for specific source code citations. Because Respondents never moved to compel discovery from Neodron and evidence suggested Respondents fully understood Neodron’s final contentions, there was no undue prejudice.

ALJ Elliot’s decision is consistent with a long line of cases that differences matter between explaining or explicating upon a previously disclosed infringement theory and advancing a new infringement theory in the first instance.  And it serves as an important reminder that a party’s delay in addressing an alleged deficiency can undermine later claims of undue prejudice.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Michael Renaud IP Litgation Attorney Mintz Levin
Member / Chair, Intellectual Property Division

Michael is a highly regarded intellectual property litigator and patent strategist who helps clients protect and generate revenue from their patent holdings. Intellectual Asset Magazine has repeatedly recognized him in its select IAM Patent 1000 and IAM Patent Strategy 300 publications. Clients rely on his counsel regarding sensitive licensing agreement negotiations, acquisitions, and other technology transactions. He leads a team known for its ability to translate complex technology and its value to non-technical professionals — in court and business negotiations.

Michael is...

617-348-1870
Adam Rizk Tech Patent Attorney Mintz Levin
Member

Adam focuses his practice on high tech patent litigation in the International Trade Commission (ITC) and Federal District Courts, patent valuation, and strategic counseling.  In addition to his legal training and graduate studies in electrical engineering, Adam’s practice is complemented by years of experience in the industry, in which he served as a principal engineer at BAE Systems before becoming a lawyer.  He has handled various matters involving complex technology such as microprocessors, digital and RF circuitry, LCD display and LED lighting systems, microelectromechanical systems (MEMs), audio and video processing, VLSI design, and software.    

In his role as a patent litigator, he has driven multiple ITC investigations to successful outcomes.  Among other things, this involved managing interdisciplinary teams of technologists, expert witnesses, and litigators, coordinating complex discovery, examining witnesses, and oral argument at trial.  Additionally, Adam served as the primary liaison in multiple German enforcement programs, where he worked closely with foreign counsel to develop the strategy for infringement and nullity proceedings.

617-348-4709
Catherine Xu Patent Attorney Mintz Levin
Associate

Catherine has an electrical engineering background and her experience includes patent litigation-related patent analysis.

Catherine was a Summer Associate at Mintz, and also interned in the Shanghai, China, office of another US law firm, where she created infringement analysis charts and conducted case research on US patent litigation involving Chinese LED manufacturers.

While in law school, she participated in the Journal of Science & Technology Law. As an undergraduate, she interned in the Department of Renewable Energy at Technische Universitat in Darmstadt,...

617.348.1765