|
Evaluating Intellectual Property Litigation
Intellectual property litigation is often so complex that attorneys are understandably forced to spend much of their time before trial focusing solely on the legalistic and highly technical details of the case. They can lose sight of the fact that the issues will be decided by a judge and jurors who do not have the scientific or technical bacsdkground to fully understand the case. In order for jurors to understand complex intellectual property cases, attorneys need to have a meaningful context, or case themes, to explain the technical substance of the case. Jurors also usually look to the motivations of the companies and individuals involved to make sense of who might have done wrong.
What Jurors Bring to Intellectual
Property Litigation
Part of the process of
bringing the jurors into preparation of an intellectual
property case is discovering the attitudes and beliefs jurors
have about patents, trademarks and copyrights, the
corporations involved in the dispute and the actions of the
parties. Attorneys for both sides often favor jurors with
technical or scientific expertise. However, even the "smartest" jurors have opinions and biases that influence
their decisions.
Jurors' attitudes about the
U.S. Patent Office can significantly influence their
decisions. Although the conventional wisdom is that jurors
will defer to the authority of the Patent Office, our recent
survey research of several urban jurisdictions indicates juror
belief that the U.S. Patent Office can often make mistakes.
Papers
Adjusting
For Attitude
Attorneys on both sides of
IP cases traditionally have favored well-educated jurors with
technical training who they believe can attend to the minute
and specific issues at hand. Empirical research suggests that
this is not the best strategy for selecting jurors. This
article explores some of the attitudes that prove important in
shaping juror verdicts that IP attorneys should explore in
voir dire.
Bringing
the Juror Back into IP Litigation
Because IP attorneys
usually need to focus on highly legal and technical aspects of
their case in pretrial preparation, they easily lose sight of
the key decision-makers: Jurors. This paper describes how to
effectively use a mock to bring jurors back into the picture
and discover which preexisting attitudes and biases shape
their reactions to your key witnesses, case facts, and
arguments.
Juror
Comments on Obviousness
These slides taken
from a presentation at the PLI Patent Conference illustrate
juror reactions to obviousness arguments and presentations in
the courtroom.
Partial list of IP cases
-
Alpex Computer v. Nintendo
- Apple v. Microsoft Corporation
- Beddor v. Mindscape
- CardioGenesis v. PLC Medical
- CNS v. Dr. Kohne & Gen-Probe
- Columbia Lighting v. Peerless Lighting
- Cypress Semiconductor v. Texas Instrument
- Diasonics v. Acuson
- Digital Biometrics v. Synergystex
- Fairchild Semi-conductor v. Nintendo
- Flying J v. T. Pistachio
- Gemstar/TV Guide v. Scientific Atlanta, et al.
- Gen-Probe v. Vysis
- Gussin v. Nintendo
- Harris v. Atmel
- Harris v. Hyundai
- Harris v. Mosel
- Harris v. Winbond
- Henley v. Dillard Department Store
- Hoffman LaRoche v. Promega
- IDEXX Labs v. Millipore
- Kimberly Clark v. Procter & Gamble
- Level 1 v. SEEQ
- Litton Industries v. Honeywell
- Mycogen v. Monsanto
- Nintendo v. Atari Games
- Nukote v. Hewlett Packard
- Pixion v. PlaceWare
- Sanyo Energy v. BYD Company Limited
- Scholle v. CapSnap
- Security & Access v. Motorola
- Starsight Teleast
- Super Health v. Super Nu-life
- Tekmax v. Exide
- Therma-Wave v. Jenoptik
- University of California v. Dr. Kohne & Gen-Probe
- University of California v. Genentech
- Wang v. Netscape
- Whipsaw v. Network Appliance
- XOMA v. Centocor
- ZF Micro v. National Semiconductor
|
