Tribune on IP & Law

The Chicago Tribune had two interesting legal stories earlier this week:

  • The Tribune's Jamie Herzlich wrote a good article explaining the basics of trademarks, including why and how to file them -- click here for the article.  It is a great first resource for anyone looking at trademarks for the first time.
  • The Tribune's Ann Therese Palmer wrote about and interviewed Pedro DeJesus, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Tampico Beverages, a Chicago-based company that is the leading refrigerated juice drink manufacturer -- click here for the article.  DeJesus, a former associate at DLA predecessor Piper Rudnick, does not appear to have an IP focus.  But his story captured my attention, probably because, like me, he went to law school focused on public interest law, but ended up entering and enjoying commercial legal services.  It is especially worth a read for current and aspiring law students.  I echo Judge Castillo's advice to DeJesus that anyone planning to do public interest law would benefit from some big firm experience.  Big firms provide exposure to many facets of the law, including exciting public interest opportunities. 

The Chicago Tribune & David Donoghue on Strategic Patenting

This morning the Chicago Tribune ran an article (click here for the Tribune's piece) based upon IFI Patent Intelligence's ranking of 2007's top U.S. patent assignees -- click here for IFI's press release.   The article focused on Motorola's movement from number 34 in 2006 to 44 in 2007.  Motorola explained that it has shifted focus from a goal of being one of the largest patent assignees to a more limited portfolio focused around Motorola's core technologies.  I was quoted in the story about the value of what I refer to as "strategic patenting":

Motorola's approach is a more common one across industries, said David Donoghue, special counsel at DLA Piper in Chicago who specializes in intellectual property. In general, most companies are "focusing their patenting efforts on their most important technologies and their biggest innovations -- the things that differentiate them from their competitors," Donoghue said.

There is also value in having a large patent portfolio, particularly if you need to use your portfolio for cross-licensing or defensively against a patent-aggressive competitor, or if you are not sure which of your technologies will drive your industry and profits in five or ten years. 

Shortly after reading the Tribune article this morning, an IPLaw 360 article caught my attention (click here for the story, subscription required).  The article discussed a study by Morgan Lewis attorneys Craig Opperman and Carina Tan (to read the Intellectual Asset Management article about Opperman's and Tan's research, click here on Opperman's biography and click the link to the article in the upper right hand corner of the page).*  Opperman and Tan argue that a high volume, low cost (per application) patenting strategy has a greater final cost than a strategic patenting strategy in which a company pays more for each individual application, but files fewer applications clustered around their core technologies.  They also offer to provide a spreadsheet proving their analysis to anyone who contacts them and asks for it.  It is an interesting premise.  Of course, it does not appear to take in to account those companies that have a high volume strategy without unnaturally driving down their patent costs.  I think few would argue that, if a company has the resources either in terms of in-house prosecutors or prosecution budget, more high value patents are better than fewer high value patents. 

*  I would provide you a pdf of the article, but I want to stay on the right side of the copyright laws.

 

DLA Piper is the Biggest, and Then Some

I do not say much about my firm, DLA Piper, in the Blog, but occasionally it seems appropriate.*  And DLA being identified as the largest firm in the world in the recent 2007 National Law Journal 250, makes this one of those times. DLA Piper was formed a few years ago by the merger of DLA, Piper Rudnick and Gray Cary.  In just about three years, the combined DLA Piper has become the largest firm in the world. Those of you who have worked with me or someone else at the firm, know that DLA Piper has offices spanning the world. Need legal help in Dubai? We have you covered. Some IP issues in China? We are there also. A contract question in Ghana or Prague? No problem.  

The firm’s global footprint and focus on providing global service to global clients is one of the reasons I joined the firm, about one year ago. At the time, I was inhouse counsel for a multinational Fortune 100 company and had lots of trouble finding counsel across Europe and Asia that I felt like I could perform any quality control over because of language barriers and a lack of a direct, personal relationships with my outside counsel. I believe that DLA’s worldwide offices, provide that sort of service and comfort-level for its clients. And the AmLaw rankings have brought considerable coverage of the firm’s global footprint: Legal Blog Watch and WSJ Law Blog.

At first, I was concerned that all the news about DLA's size might overshadow what I consider the more important point -- DLA could not have achieved the size it has without providing excellent results and client service consistently, in each office around the world.  Then I saw the WSJ Law Blog's interview last week of DLA Piper's co-CEO Frank Burch.  I think Frank gets the point across well.  DLA Piper's size is not its end goal, it is a by-product of serving clients globally on their most significant legal matters.

Shameless plug over, now let’s get back to Chicago IP litigation . . . .

* This is also a good time to remind you that the views expressed in the Blog are mine alone, and are not necessarily the views of DLA Piper or any of its clients.

Chinese Patents are Meaningful

This post is not Chicago-specific, but it is an issue I feel very strongly about.  Last week, my DLA Piper colleague Stan Abrams in Beijing wrote a post at his China Hearsay blog arguing against the widely-held belief that patent protection in China is worthless:

Again, I’m not going to start the whole “China’s IP system is getting better and filing a patent is worth it and can be protected . . .” type of argument. Call me, and I’ll be happy to sound forth on that subject for a couple hours, but I’m not writing about it today. No, what really bothers me is this knee-jerk aggregation of the “China market” that encompasses all types of patents, all types of products, all kinds of technologies, all locations, all manufacturing processes - you get the point.

Look, your chances of protecting your patent in China varies significantly according to a number of factors. Given positive factors, the system here can work extremely well for IP owners. Given a poor set of factors, you can be screwed with no practical options. Talking about whether filing a patent in worth it or not begs the question as to what technology we are dealing with, what industry sector, a whole host of issues.

I know that it’s tough to deal with complex issues on TV or in a newspaper Q&A column. It’s much easier to show a photo of a fake Rolex and talk about the scourge of piracy, but in the end, this does not help real companies with real risk management calculations to make. Not to unjustly smack around the Wall Street Journal (heaven forbid), but there you have it.

Stan has it right.  Patent protection in China is improving and foreign corporations have been winning cases brought in Chinese courts.  It is certainly true, that Chinese patent protection is not consistent.  But if you choose to believe the stereotypes and do not "waste" your money protecting your technology in China, you will have no recourse if that technology is stolen.  Corporations doing business in China or in industries that use substantial Asian manufacturing should be protecting their technology in China.

One other thing, Stan suggests that if you file a PCT most of the work in China is translation.  Having been involved in potential litigation over translated Chinese patents, I warn you to check your translation very carefully.  Mandarin is very different from English.  Some English words do not have simple, direct Mandarin translations and vice versa.  I encourage you to check your translation, ideally with a bilingual engineer or scientist with experience in the patented technology.  Translation mistakes can create major holes in your case.

DLA Piper is One of 39 AmLaw 200 Firms Blogging

LexBlog (the firm that designed this Blog) has just done a very interesting analysis of blogging among the AmLaw 200 firms.  LexBlog found that 39 of the AmLaw 200 firms are blogging.  The firms (or their lawyers) have 74 blog.  Of those 74, 56 are firm branded (like this one) and 18 are not, suggesting that the blog may not be formally approved by the firm.  And nearly half of the 74 blogs were designed by LexBlog -- an impressive testimony.  I predict that by this time next year there will be 125-150 AmLaw 200 blogs and that LexBlog will continue to have created at least half of them.

After the jump, there are links to and descriptions of the other intellectual property or technology-related blogs from the AmLaw 200:*

 

Fair Use Blog

Blackwell Sanders LLP has four lawyers – Gary Pierson, Pete Salsich III, Geoffrey Gerber and Michael Kahn – operating the Fair Use Blog. In their posts, the attorneys deal with laws pertaining to first amendment and intellectual property issues.

Telecom Law Blog

Davis Wright Tremaine have also developed the Telecom Law Blog. Updated by eight of the firm’s telecommunications attorneys, it provides news on developments in telecommunications law.

Drug and Device Law

The Drug and Device Law blog is a joint project between two lawyers: Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann. It provides commentary from the two attorneys about medical device product liability litigation. Beck is an attorney with Dechert LLP, while Herrmann works as a partner for Jones Day.

Patent Baristas

Patent Baristas is a blog related specifically to patent issues impacting the biotechnology/pharmaceutical worlds. It is written and published by “Editor-in-Chief Barista” Stephen Albainy-Jenei, a patent attorney at Frost Brown Todd LLC.

KM Space

Doug Cornelius writes his blog, KM Space, which provides commentary on legal technology. Doug is an associate with Goodwin Procter.

Internet Cases

Evan Brown writes the content for Internet Cases, a blog highlighting internet/technology-related legal news. Evan is an attorney at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in Chicago.

Daily Dose of IP

Patent attorney Mark Reichel operates his own Blogspot blog, called the Daily Dose of IP. In his blog, Reichel – an attorney with Ice Miller LLP – provides constant updates on intellectual property law.

RFID Law Blog

The RFID Law Blog is a blog started by McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. Written mostly by Douglas Farry, chair of the firm’s RFID practice, the blog deals with the growing use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.

Nanotechnology Law Report

The Nanotechnology Law Report is a project of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP. John Monica, Jr. and Michael Heintz write the entries, which focus on nanotechnology news and legal developments.

Electronic Discovery Law

K&L Gates operates the Electronic Discovery Law blog. Updated by the firm’s , the blog provides updates on news and legal developments related to e-discovery issues.

Legal Technology Blog

The Xerdict Group LLC, a subsidiary company of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, operates the Legal Technology Blog. Written by Kenneth Jones, the Blogspot blog focuses on legal technology trends.

Intellectual Property Law Blog

The Intellectual Property Law Blog is another Sheppard Mullin project. Focusing on recent developments in IP law, it is updated by seven of the firm’s IP lawyers.

Silicon Valley Media Law Blog 

Cathy Kirkman, an attorney with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, operates the Silicon Valley Media Law Blog. In her blog, Cathy provides updates on various technology and media-related legal issues.

Trade Secrets Blog

The Trade Secrets Blog, by Womble Carlyle’s Press Millen & Todd Sullivan, deals with trade secrets litigation in the southeastern United States.

Commlaw - Mass Media

Maintained by the lawyers and attorneys from Womble Carlyle’s Telecommunications, Cable & Broadcast Group, the Commlaw-Mass Media blog focuses on the broadcast industry.

Commlaw Source

The Commlaw Source blog highlights legal developments related to the telecommunication industry. Content for the blog is written by Womble Carlyle’s Ross Buntrock and Michael Hazzard.

 

*  Thanks to LexBlog for doing all of this research, for the list of the blogs and for the description accompanying each blog link.  The LexBlog designed sites are identified with the   logo.

DLA Piper Joins the Short List of AmLaw 200 Firms with Blogs

Ron Friedmann, of Prism Legal Consulting has created a list of "firm-branded blogs" -- he does not count AmLaw 200 attorneys that blog without displaying their firm affiliation -- in which he identifies nine AmLaw 200 firms that have a collective 30 blogs.  LexBlog's Kevin O'Keefe adds four more to Friedmann's list to reach 13 AmLaw 200 firms with 34 blogs:

Kevin's post also alludes to another blog from one of the AmLaw 50 that LexBlog will be going live with this week.  And as you can see from the addition of the DLA Piper logo to the Blog, this is it. 

Many friends and colleagues already know that I left my in-house position with Delphi's Technology Licensing & Litigation group in November and reentered private practice as Special Counsel to DLA Piper.  It has taken a little bit of time to get everything ready to go, but DLA has embraced the Blog and is very excited about being affiliated with it.  The Blog remains mine and that you will continue to get the same quality content.  The only differences are that I am back in Chicago and that I am now actively litigating IP matters in the Northern District of Illinois again.  It is great to be back in town and, as always, I welcome your comments.  And now that I am no longer inhouse, in addition to my thoughts (which remain solely mine and not necessarily those of DLA Piper or any of our clients) I can offer you my litigation services should you ever need them.