Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates

Search for Prior Art Using IEEE

I received the following offer from IEEE and have added it to my Tools list:

When it comes to US and European technology patenting, the IEEE is cited nearly 4 times more frequently than any other publisher. And our IEEE Xplore® digital library offers you immediate access to high-quality, full-text documents – no waiting for document delivery.

Efficient Searching. Fast Access. Manageable Costs.

    * Nearly 2 million IEEE documents, plus more from the UK’s IET
    * Free keyword searching
    * Unlimited viewing of basic abstracts
    * Affordable subscription options such as IEEE Enterprise
    * Individual online article purchase available via credit card

Visit here to find out about purchasing IEEE articles online or for a free 14-day trial of the IEEE Enterprise subscription plan – complete with 10 article downloads.

E-Mail Archives And Litigation: Here's How To Get It Right

Andrew Conry-Murray writes for InformationWeek (From the June 23, 2008 print issue) about how, "[f]ailure to manage e-mail can cost millions in court. A popular framework and an archiving system can help get your house in order--and pay dividends in the legal realm and beyond."

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara L. Major hit Qualcomm (NSDQ: QCOM) with an $8.5 million penalty for failing to produce e-mail relevant to a patent lawsuit against Broadcom (NSDQ: BRCM). "Qualcomm intentionally withheld tens of thousands of decisive documents from its opponent in an effort to win this case and gain a strategic business advantage over Broadcom," Major wrote. At issue: Qualcomm failed to search the computers of key witnesses before completion of the trial, a catastrophic oversight because e-mail disputing Qualcomm's main argument was subsequently found by a Qualcomm attorney.

Then Qualcomm compounded its error by not turning the newly discovered e-mail over to Broadcom.

Because nothing gets a product sold like the threat of litigation, we're seeing a surge in two markets: e-mail archives, and tools to aid in legal discovery, the process by which information relevant to litigation or an investigation is found, analyzed, and turned over. Legal discovery is the new growth engine for archiving technology: Gartner estimates spending on discovery software and services will grow 35% every year for the next three years, while IDC forecasts that sales of e-mail archiving applications will jump to $1.7 billion by 2011, up from $631 million in 2007. And this spring saw significant activity in the archiving market. Dell (Dell) purchased MessageOne, a software-as-a-service provider of e-mail archiving, continuity, and compliance services, for $155 million. Barracuda Networks and Trend Micro launched archiving appliances. And in April, Oracle (NSDQ: ORCL) announced a forthcoming product line, the Universal Online Archive, to store and manage unstructured data; its first module will be the Oracle E-Mail Archive Service.

The full article is a nice overview of the issues facing companies when confronted with e-discovery.  Based on a major e-discovery project that I managed two years ago, the tools are a tremendous aid, but the real challenge I found was in selecting keywords and then sifting through the massive volume of responsive documents to get to the truely useful material.  This litigation involved dealing with documents across multiple media and locations with little guidance from former employees of the now defunct company as to how the data was archived over time.  I learned a lot about the importance of having a system in place that anticipates the future need for e-discovery while at the same time yielding substantial business benefits.  Read the full article here.

Costs of Patent Infringement Litigation

In a presentation titled, "U.S. Patent Law – A Procedural Overview" by Fox Rothschild LLP, a cost estimate for the various steps of a patent infringement case is included.  These costs are as follows:

i.     Prefiling investigation ~ $5,000.
ii.    Preparation and filing of complaint ~ $3,000.
iii.   Initial Disclosures ~ $3,000.
iv.   Preparation of Proposed Scheduling Order ~ $3,000.
v.    Preparation of discovery requests ~ $15,000 to $20,000.
vi.   Preparation of discovery request responses ~ $15,000 to $20,000.
vii.  Preparation for and participate in defensive or offensive deposition ~ $15,000 per witness.
viii. Expert discovery: ~$15,000 per expert report on infringement; ~$15,000 per expert report on validity; and between ~$50,000 to $100,000 per report on damages.
ix.   Prepare for and defend/take expert deposition ~ $15,000 per expert.
x.    Expert witness fees ~ $25,000 per technical witness and ~$50,000 for damages expert.
xi.   Preparation of claim construction and/or summary judgment brief on infringement or validity ~ $20,000 to $30,000 per brief.
xii.  Preparation for and attend claim construction or summary judgment hearing: with expert testimony ~ $30,000, without expert testimony ~$20,000.

Pretrial activities - Preparation of case-in-chief:
     Deposition designations ~ $5,000 per witness.
     Trial consultants ~ $25,000 to $50,000.
     Mock trial, if any ~$100,000+
     Motions in limine ~$5,000 each.
     Pretrial brief ~$25,000.
     Pretrial activities week before trial: $40,000 legal fees and $40,000 expert witness fees.

Two Week Trial:
     Counsel fees (2 attorneys) ~ $120,000.
     Expert witness fees for 3 witnesses ~ $40,000.
     Food and lodging ~ $60,000.

Total Litigation Costs ~$1.3 million

See the full presentation here.

FormFactor Patents Invalid, SK Supreme Court Rules

EE Times Asia reported today, June 30, 2008:

The South Korea Supreme Court issued an oral ruling that 12 claims of FormFactor's Korean Patent No.252457 are invalid, and ordering the case to be taken back to the Korean Patent Court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

The decision, however, does not specifically address the remaining 48 claims of Patent No. 252457, or FormFactor's infringement claims against Phicom Corp. Following normal practice, the bases for the ruling were not given and a written opinion explaining the ruling will typically be expected in one to three weeks.

FormFactor's Korea Patent No. 252457 was issued by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) in 2000. In 2004, the Intellectual Property Tribunal Panel at KIPO upheld the patent against Phicom's challenge, and in 2006, the Korea Patent Court re-confirmed the validity of the patent by dismissing Phicom's appeal of the IPT panel decision.

It was after these earlier reviews of Korea Patent No. 252457 that the Korea Supreme Court found issues with the patent claims and directed the Patent Court to revisit patent validity. FormFactor's infringement claims in Korea against Phicom, which were filed February 24, 2004 with the Seoul Southern District Court (Patent Nos. 278342, 399210) and in Aug. 8, 2006 with the Seoul Central District Court (Patent No. 252457), are still pending.

Read the full article here.

Patent Infringement Updates Celebrates Third Anniversary

Thanks to all of you loyal, as well as occassional, readers.

Please let me know what types of content you would like to see in the coming year.

All the best... Phil

Patent Damages: The European Landscape

An article of the above title by Gregory J. Urbanchuk and James R. Tumbridge appears in the Summer 2008 issue of the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Litigation (available to members only).

The rules for quantifying patent damages varies among the states of the European Union.  Mr. Urbanchuk and Mr. Tumbridge write that, "[h]owever, on April 24, 2004, the European Parliament and Council adopted the EU IP Enforcement Directive. The primary purpose of the directive was to create a level playing field for the enforcement of intellectual property rights across the member states by establishing a homogenized set of enforcement measures."  Article 13 of this Directive defines the procedure for quantifying these damages.

In the article the authors discuss the possible confusion created by the "undefined terms and interpretational differences" of the Directive and survey patent damage rules by country (including the United kingdom, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Italy).

Gregory J. Urbanchuk is with the Forensic & Dispute Services Practice of ESBA. He can be reached at gurbanchuk@esba.com. James R. Tumbridge is a barrister in the London office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. He can be reached at jtumbridge@milbank.com.

Peer-to-patent Increases Prior Art Submissions

Eklavya Gupte reporting on June 23, 2008, from London for Managing Intellectual Property writes, "[t]he USPTO's peer-to-patent project has led to a big increase in prior art submissions but has failed to bring in fresh patent applications in its first year, according to a report.  The pilot project began on June 15 last year and was designed to help US patent examiners to assess applications for software patents by encouraging the public to submit relevant prior art."

Read the complete article here.

CBI’s Pharmaceutical Congress on Paragraph IV Disputes

The Center for Business Intelligence is hosting the above titled conference in Philadelphia, PA on October 15 - 16, 2008.

Paragraph IV litigation is reaching an all-time high with almost $85 billion in product sales that potentially could be affected by pending litigation and more than twenty-five drugs going off patent before 2012.  Today’s pharmaceutical companies, both brand and generic, have much at stake in this costly, complex and constantly changing area of patent litigation.  CBI’s Pharmaceutical Congress on Paragraph IV Disputes brings both sides of the issue together for two days of presentations and panel discussions to discuss litigation strategies, statutory guidelines, current cases and their landmark decisions.

Topics to be discussed include:

• FTC address on pharmaceutical antitrust
• In depth analysis of recent court cases and their implications on brand and generic companies
• Effects of KSR on brand and generic litigation strategies
• Panel discussion on acceptable settlement strategies for paragraph IV disputes
• Litigating paragraph IV disputes with multiple ANDA filers
• Interpreting forfeiture provisions for better business decisions
• Pre-suit preparedness strategies for paragraph IV disputes
• Citizen petitions and their impact on generic entry
• Declaratory judgments
• At risk launches

More information and registration details are available here.

Pitt Sues Again Over Patents

Bill Schackner, for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote on June 21, 2008:

The University of Pittsburgh, turned down by a federal judge in Pittsburgh, has taken a patent infringement lawsuit against the world's largest producer of radiotherapy equipment for cancer treatment to a California court.

Pitt alleges that Varian Medical Systems Inc., headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif., infringed on two patents held by the university. Documents filed with the complaint describe one of the devices at issue as being able to match X-ray images with reference images, and another as having the capability to respond to a patient's body movements during diagnosis and treatment.

"Varian's infringement has injured and damaged" the university, states the lawsuit filed this week in federal court for the Northern District of California. Pitt is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages.

The complaint alleges that Varian infringed "with full knowledge" of the existence of the patents. It says the California court has proper jurisdiction over the matter, in part because of where Varian does business.

The complaint was dated Monday, the same day U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab in Pittsburgh issued an order dismissing a lawsuit over the patents that had been filed April 13, 2007. Court records indicate Pitt plans to appeal.

See the full article here.

First China-Based Sucralose Manufacturer Confirms United States ITC Target Date Extension

The following is excerpted from a June 4, 2008 Business Wire press release:

Guangdong Food Industry Institute (GDFII/L&P Food), a leading manufacturer of sucralose, announces that Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Bullock of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has extended the target date for the ITC’s final decision to January 12, 2009 on Tate & Lyle’s Section 337 complaint (docket# 337-TA-604). The complaint alleges infringement of process patents relating to the production of sucralose and certain intermediate compounds. The extension is due to the ITC’s heavy workload.

Mr. Wang Sanyong, a corporate officer of GDFII/L&P Food comments, “We have presented the facts to the ITC as fully and completely as possible. One of the patents asserted by T&L was dropped before the hearing and after an inspection of our facility; T&L’s expert acknowledged that GDFII/L&P Food’s current process, as inspected, does not infringe two of the other patents; and a fourth patent expires in July 2009, only a few months after the new target date for the ITC’s final decision.

Read the full release here.

Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog

I have added Brian Wm. Higgins' Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog to my Blogroll.  Mr. Higgins' blog covers the following topics:

• Copyrights
• Forms & Downloads
• IP News and Trends
• Litigation
• Patents
• Patent Reform Act
• Trade Secrets
• Trademarks

In an April 10, 2008 blog in the Litigation section there is an interesting post entitled, "District Court IP Litigation Trends 1Q 2008."

The table below identifies the top 10 states having the most copyright, trademark, and patent lawsuits filed in their respective U.S. district courts during the first quarter of 2008 (source Justia.com). The numbers show that California had the most filings, followed by, in order, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan.  The table shows Maryland's ranking: 24th overall, but 15th for trademark and copyright filings.

See the table here.

The Rise of Asia's Patent Applications

The following News & Trends reports appeared at EE Times Asia on June 2, 2008:

In a year that saw a record number of filings under the World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), inventors from South Korea and China consolidated their top 10 positions in 2007, along with the United States, Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom., the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. There were 156,100 applications filed in 2007, representing 4.7 percent growth over the previous year.

For the fourth year running, the most notable growth rates came from countries in northeast Asia, which accounted for over a quarter of all international applications under the PCT.

South Korea, which experienced 18.8 percent growth in 2007 over 2006, overtook France to become the fourth biggest country of origin of PCT filings. Applicants from China, whose use grew by 38.1 percent, dislodged the Netherlands to take seventh spot.

...the largest proportions of PCT applications published last year were related to telecommunications (10.5 percent), IT (10.1 percent) and pharmaceuticals (9.3 percent). The fastest growing technology areas were nuclear engineering (24.5 percent) and telecommunications (15.5 percent).

See the full article here.

IP License Strategies After Court's Unanimous Ruling on Patent Exhaustion

Strafford Publications is hosting a live 90-Minute CLE Teleconference with Interactive Q&A on July 16, 2008.

On June 9, in Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court once again reversed the Federal Circuit on an issue involving patent owners' rights, continuing the Court's recent inclination toward limiting the scope of patent rights.

The Court's ruling firmly rejected the Federal Circuit's departure from the doctrine of patent exhaustion enunciated almost 150 years ago: that the authorized sale or disposition of a patented article exhausts a patent owner's right to that article and such exhaustion cannot be "contracted around."

The Court further reversed the Federal Circuit in ruling that the patent exhaustion doctrine does apply to method claims. The Court also discussed "reasonable use" of a patented product and "essential features" of a patent claim, both highly relevant issues in exhaustion arguments.

Panel

• Allen E. Hoover, Partner, Banner & Witcoff, Chicago.
• Patricia A. Millett, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C.
• Richard P. Gilly, Partner, Winston & Strawn, Washington, D.C.

More information and registration details are available here.

Broadcom Found Not to Infringe SiRF Patents in ITC Ruling

The following is excerpted from a June 13, 2008 Broadcom press release that appeared at PR Newswire:

Broadcom Corporation (Nasdaq: BRCM) today announced that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) rejected claims by GPS chipmaker SiRF Technology Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: SIRF) that two of its GPS patents were infringed by Global Locate, a company Broadcom acquired in July 2007. The ITC also found that the asserted claims of one of SiRF's patents at issue are invalid.

ITC Administrative Law Judge Paul Luckern issued his Initial Determination today, following a six-day trial last March in Washington, D.C.

Broadcom, through its acquisition of Global Locate, is a leading provider of GPS and assisted GPS semiconductor solutions, and is currently shipping GPS functionality into a variety of products including personal navigation devices and cellular handsets.

Broadcom's own claims against SiRF went to trial in the ITC last April. An initial determination in that case, heard before Administrative Law Judge Carl Charneski, is expected by August 8, 2008.

Read the full press release here.

More Patent Statistics

In a follow-up to my June 6, 2008 post entitled, "Chinese Patent Statistics," I was contacted by Evalueserve with a link to the study cited in their press release (free, but registration required).  These additional observations were provided:

The article ‘Patenting Landscape in China’ depicts the change in patent filing trends by Chinese companies and its impact on the Chinese IP legal system.

Our research shows that Chinese companies have started realizing the importance of protecting their Intellectual Property. China has developed its legal structure to resolve issues related to patent infringement. The year-on-year increase in patent filings in the past 20 years is 25.1 percent for domestic companies and 4.5 percent for international companies. This indicates the increasing awareness towards patents in domestic Chinese companies. In 2007, 62.4 percent of all 20-year patent applications were filed by domestic companies.

In our study we have also looked at patent-related lawsuits involving international companies. According to the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing, foreign parties have won 60 percent of these cases. We have also analyzed the famous Chint vs. Schneider case, pointing out some important considerations that international companies filing patents in China should take into account.

Evalueserve has also released a new study entitled, "Patenting Landscape in India."  The following is excerpted from a June 11, 2008 Evalueserve press release announcing the study's availability:

Approximately 35,000 patent applications (those with a validity of 20 years from their filing date, once granted) were filed at the Indian Patent Office (IPO) during the 2007-08 fiscal year, which indicates a 21 percent growth over the previous year. In contrast, the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) received a total of 245,161 20-year patent applications in 2007. This made China the third most prolific patent-filing country in the world after the United States and Japan. Patent filing has been growing both in India and China at approximately 20 percent per year. However, the SIPO received approximately the same number of 20-year applications in 1997 as the IPO did in 2007-08. This implies that India is approximately 10 years behind China.

Legal Imperatives on IP Management

A new publication is available from Research and Markets Ltd. in Dublin:

The business landscape is littered with intellectual property landmines. Microsoft, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Medtronic, Research in Motion and Nintendo are just a few of the companies that have settled patent infringement disputes for hundreds of millions of dollars.  Toshiba paid a $425 million judgment to Lexar for violating trade secrets. Pfizer's patents for Viagra were ruled invalid in China and Microsoft faces similar concerns over its Office product in South Korea. In the battle of protecting intellectual property, the IP lawyer is on the front lines.  

It is the IP lawyer who: 

• Drafts the patent applications, knowing that the defensibility of the firm's intellectual capital hangs on each word that the IP lawyer crafts.  

• Must have the prescience to secure valuable IP rights throughout the world in anticipation of his company later doing business in remote markets.  

• Must defend his company against attacks by patent trolls.  

• Must have the business savvy to transform fierce litigation into mutually beneficial licensing agreements.  

• Must retain patent, trademark, and copyright exclusivity while avoiding anti-trust challenges.  

This report includes interviews with many of the nation's foremost authorities on the intellectual property law. Intellectual Property Litigation is extremely expensive and becoming increasingly common. From 1984 to 1999, the mean loss absorbed by companies faced with IP litigation was $28.7 million in total losses. Microsoft, Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Medtronic, Research in Motion and Nintendo are just a few of the companies that have settled patent infringement disputes for hundreds of millions of dollars. Cisco Systems reports that it is named as a defendant in at least one IP lawsuit each week.

For more information please click here.

Guest Blog: Quanta Computers, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.: The Supreme Court Sets the Law on Patent Exhaustion Back On Track

By Charles R. Macedo, Joseph M. Casino,  and Marion P. Metelski Charles R. Macedo and Joseph M. Casino are Partners and Marion P. Metelski is Senior Counsel at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP. Their practices specialize in intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark, and other intellectual property disputes; prosecuting patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other patent offices throughout the world; registering trademarks and service marks with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and other trademark offices throughout the world; and drafting and negotiating intellectual property agreements.  They may be reached at cmacedo@arelaw.com, jcasino@arelaw.com, and mmetelski@arelaw.com.  This article is not intended to express the views of the firm or its clients.

 

 

For the first time in over fifty years, and certainly since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was formed, the Supreme Court has directly addressed the law of patent exhaustion this week in Quanta Computers, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Slip Op. (Sup. Ct. Jun. 9, 2008).  

 

In Quanta, a unanimous Supreme Court recognized that “[f]or over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item.”  (Slip op. at 1).  The Court disagreed with the Federal Circuit on both issues raised on certiorari and found, “[b]ecause the exhaustion doctrine applies to method patents, and because the license authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the sale exhausts the patents.”  (Slip op. at 1).

 

In particular, the Supreme Court has confirmed that “[t]he longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.”  (Slip op. at 5).  The Supreme Court has also confirmed that “the exhaustion doctrine applies to method patents” (Slip op. at 1, 9-11) and when a “license authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the sale exhaust[s] the patents.”  (Slip op. at 1, 11-16).  This week’s Supreme Court decision promises to provide customers of a patent licensee with greater certainty as to the rights they receive incident to their purchases of patented items.

 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not addressed all of the issues concerning the patent exhaustion doctrine:

• The Supreme Court did not address the Federal Circuit’s precedent that the sale of patented components outside the U.S. by a patentee or its licensee does not exhaust a U.S. patent.  See Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp.,394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Jazz Photo Corp. v. U.S. ITC, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 
• In Footnote 7 of the Quanta Opinion, the Supreme Court raised a new issue for consideration, viz., whether a patentee has any available remedies under contract law if patent exhaustion precludes damages under patent law.  This issue may lead to a host of new theories of contract law.  Whether the patent exhaustion doctrine is an issue of patent law or contract law was heavily discussed during oral argument. 
• The Court’s discussion as to what constitutes a “reasonable use” of a patented product and what are the “essential features” of a patent claim is helpful.  However, it is likely that these standards will need to be further fleshed out by the lower courts in the future. 
• Finally, the Court's analysis in Quanta has left open the possibility that, under a different contractual scheme, such as where a conditional license is granted and the condition is not fulfilled, the exhaustion doctrine may not come into play.

 

This Guest Blog has briefly addressed the Supreme Court’s Quanta decision.  For a more complete discussion of the Court’s Opinion, please see our IPLAW360 Guest Column, “Quanta Computers, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.: The Supreme Court Sets the Law on Patent Exhaustion Back On Track,” which is available at the IPLAW360 website or will be available shortly at our firm’s website (www.arelaw.com/articles) along with our prior writings on this case.

Chipping Away at the Quanta v. LG Electronics Patent Decision

In a follow-up to the January 11, 2008 guest post authored by  Michael J. Kasdan, Esq. and  Charles R. Macedo , Esq. of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP, Michael writes, "the Supreme Court resolved in its Quanta decision yesterday the three major exhaustion issues - (i) method claims; (ii) contracting around exhaustion; and (iii) the issue of when components exhaust finished products."

Ashby Jones writing for The Wall Street Journal yesterday, June 9, 2008, writes, in part:

Earlier today, the Court unveiled four opinions, the most interesting of which, in our opinion, is Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. In a 9-0 opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court limited a patent-holder’s ability to demand royalties on the use of a product after it’s sold. We checked in with WSJ Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin to get the skinny on what happened and why it matters in the long run.

LG Electronics bought up a bunch of patents in 1999, including patents for computer chips, which they later licensed to Intel. Intel then used the patents in making chips, which they sold to computer manufacturers. When they sold them, however, they included a provision in the sale agreement — insisted upon by LG Electronics — that said you, the purchaser, can’t combine these products with any others—that is, you can’t install them in a computer—without an additional license from LG.

Basically LG demanded a royalty, saying to the purchasers, “you may have bought these chips from Intel, but you just can’t use them in computers without paying royalties.” Some purchasers paid the royalties, but Quanta — a Taiwanese manufacturer — didn’t and was sued in federal court.

The [Supreme Court's] ruling relaxes the grip of the patent owner on downstream uses. This could apply to many many other products, even more nowadays when you have much more complicated devices. The Court relied on this notion of patent exhaustion, the idea that once you buy something, you’re entitled to use it, even if there’s a patent on the product. To hold otherwise would place too great a burden on trade.

Read the full interview with Jess Bravin here.

Rule 11 Issues in Patent Infringement Filings

Lawrence Ebert of IPBiz blog wrote on June 6, 2008:

GERALD N. PELLEGRINI, appearing pro se against Analog Devices (represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) took a beating in a case decided by the CAFC on 5 June 08.  The case brings up the issue of Rule 11 in filing assertions of patent infringement.

Read the full post here.

Chinese Patent Statistics

The following is excerpted from a June 5, 2008 Evaluserve press release that appeared at SANEPR:

Although China is still struggling with the image of being a safe haven for intellectual property counterfeiters and thieves, during the last two decades it has developed its patent system significantly, and incorporated an online and searchable patent database, a robust appeal mechanism, and a hierarchy of courts for handling intellectual property disputes. As a result, more than four million patent applications were filed from early 1985 to December 2007. The first million applications were filed over 15 years, but the last million took only 18 months. These measures also resulted in a substantial increase in lawsuits related to patent infringement. For example, in 2005, 2,947 patent-related cases were filed in Chinese courts, representing an increase of 15.6 percent from 2004. In contrast, the number of patent-related lawsuits in the United States decreased from 2,973 in 2004 to 2,812 in 2006. The difference in the number of legal cases related to all forms of intellectual property (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyright, and trade secrets) is even more significant: in 2005, 13,424 cases were filed in China, whereas only 10,905 were filed in the United States.

Read the full release here.