Vol. 1 No. 6 July./August. 2009:
In a Harsh Economic Climate

Best Practices in Budgeting for Patent Litigation
By Jonathan E. Retsky and Thomas V. Miller

In patent litigation, fees and expenses can mount quickly. If left unchecked, unanticipated costs may destroy an attorney-client relationship. In today’s harsh economic climate, litigators must develop more effective tools for preparing and communicating about litigation budgets and forecasts. Here is one way to do it.

View the full article

The following articles from
Vol.1 No.6 July./August. 2009
are available to Section members.
mo

Controlling E-Discovery Costs in IP Matters—Are You Being Penny Wise and Pound Foolish?
By Richard Finkelman and David A. Gustafson

Do not underestimate the impact of the initial investment in e-discovery on budget bottom lines. Wise choices in the early phases of the e-discovery life cycle may ultimately cut the costs of downstream document and data processing, attorney review, and production. read more...

A Potential Gap in the ITC’s Authority: Method of Use Claims
By Andrew N. Thomases

The ITC is an increasingly popular forum for patent litigation. One reason: it’s the ultimate “rocket docket.” Another reason: orders restricting importation into the United States are routine when liability has been established. Patent holders beware, however. The ITC may not have the statutory authority to investigate allegations of infringement of a patent claiming a method of use. read more...

U.S. Claim Construction Orders 2004–2008: Encompassing Incidence, Time to Construction, and Related Data
By Joshua H. Walker and Xiangnong “George” Wang

Claim construction is an important and complex issue in patent infringement actions. How many cases get to claim construction? In which districts? How long does it take? How many are appealed? Stanford’s IP Litigation Clearinghouse reveals the findings of its comprehensive study. The results may surprise you. read more...

Experimental Testing in Patent Litigation
By Emily A. Evans and Diana B. Kruze

Plaintiffs often need to test an accused product or process to determine if it meets the patent’s limitations. Patent holders bear the burden of proof on infringement, and failure to test may be fatal. Defendants may also test to support arguments for noninfringement, anticipation, or nonenablement. This article offers “dos and don’ts” of testing and use of test results at trial. read more...

False Endorsement and the Fame Revolution: The Evolution of IP’s Vanilla Shake
By Stephen E. Roth

False endorsement has long been the IP world’s equivalent of a vanilla shake: not frequently ordered, basic, straightforward. However, the law and the Internet have converged to give this old stand-by the potential for new popularity. Just look at New York’s Naked Cowboy, YouTube, and Facebook to understand why. read more...

Railroaded Again? Jacobsen v. Katzer and the Open Source Debate
By David L. Applegate

Model railroad hobbyists can now operate their trains by remote control with software programs on personal computers. The Federal Circuit has ruled that a creator of open source code for one of these programs may sue for copyright infringement if certain licensing conditions are not met. But the debate is not over yet.. read more...

Modern Web Tools Implicate Copyright and Hot News
By Evan D. Brown

Once upon a time, the Web was more static. It was more “read only,” with limited opportunity for end users to comment on, share, or modify content. Fast forward to today, and user-generated content is the norm. Questions of implied license and the hot news doctrine arise as fast as technology evolves. read more...

Section Focus
Up Close: An ABA-IPL Young Lawyer Fellow
Viewpoints on Art, Law, and Life-Changing Moments

by Adrienne R. Fields

Recent Developments in IP Law
By John C. Gatz

Meeting of the Minds:
By Michael Aaron Crookson

USPTO Q&A

From the Hill
by Hayden W. Gregrory

Perspective
By Gordon Arnold

Download the full issue

Advertisement