Legal Technology News - E-Discovery and Compliance Blog

Patents, Trademarks, IP

November 07, 2012

USPTO Grants H5 Patent for Its TAR Process

H5_logo_400We interrupt your construction of a standard query designed to retrieve relevant documents, with high recall and precision, from a corpus of documents based on your expertise as an attorney and content expert in a case and your iterative work at refining a search query with reflexive search terms after your review of search results based on previous, iterative searching. Attention.

H5, a provider of e-discovery, technology-assisted review and case preparation support, has patented a process for "high recall and high precision relevancy searching." The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted to H5 on October 23 U.S. Patent No. 8,296,309, which covers aspects of H5's "deterministic" technology-assisted review, according to the company — and the USPTO. We checked.

Continue reading "USPTO Grants H5 Patent for Its TAR Process" »

March 06, 2012

Eastern District of Texas Model Order for Patent EDD

Texas_flags_400Today's Law Technology News article, "Eastern District of Texas Issues Model Order for Patent E-Discovery," highlights some of the provisions of the district's new e-discovery order, crafted from the Federal Circuit's model e-discovery order (see the LTN article "The Elephant in the Patent Courtroom").

The model order also has some similarity to elements of Delaware's Default Standard for Discovery (see the LTN article "Delaware's Default E-Discovery Developments").

Among the most useful provisions of the district's order is that limitations on email production apply to the mandatory disclosures required by the local Patent Rules. According to the Eastern District website the model e-discovery order is effective immediately, but public comments will be accepted until March 23, 2012.

Image by Clipart.com

January 26, 2012

Patent Pilot Discovery: Tip of the Spear

Check out the LTN article "Patent Pilot Discovery: the Tip of the Spear," by Mark Michels, which reports on Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Randall Rader's keynote speech at Stanford Law School on January 18, 2012, on the Patent Pilot Program.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is one of 14 districts selected by the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to participate in the pilot program, which is intended to enhance expertise in patent cases among federal judges. See Pub. Law 111–349 (Jan. 4, 2011).

According to Rader, the pilot program paves the way for the "patent system to lead to an economically defensible adjudication model" in the United States. Rader cites the Federal Circuit Advisory Committee's Model E-discovery Order (reported in LTN's article "The Elephant in the Patent Courtroom") as one component of the patent bar’s leadership in reducing discovery costs.

Rader is passionate in his view that reducing litigation costs by limiting discovery burdens through the patent pilot program is the most critical first step on the path to reforming patent litigation in the United States.

January 10, 2012

Dodging a Bullet (For Now)

No Harm, No Foul for Data Destruction: Check out "The Risks of Failing to Preserve Patent Prosecution Files," an article I wrote for LTN's website. It discusses a unique patent litigation remedy for spoliation claims. In Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen International Dist., Ltd, the plaintiff delayed filing its lawsuit for more than six years, raising a laches defense that would have significantly limited patent damages. The defendant claimed it suffered “evidentiary prejudice” because the patent prosecutor destroyed his files. The court ultimately rejected the laches defense.

The plaintiff dodged a bullet but risked a substantial damages limitation because the patent prosecutor destroyed his files. Metso is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.

December 02, 2011

The Elephant in the Patent Courtroom

ElephantMark Michels says efforts to streamline preservation in patent cases is a good start, but much more is needed. Read the story here.

 

Image: Stephen Hayes

November 07, 2011

Patent Litigation Model E-discovery Order Update

In the LTN article The Elephant in the Patent Courtroom I reported on the model e-discovery order for patent litigation developed by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council's E-Discovery Committee. 

            Judges in three patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas have issued orders with provisions very similar to or incorporating the patent Litigation Model Ediscovery Order terms: Stambler v. Atmos Energy (Case No. 2:10-CV-594)((Judge Everingham), Effectively Illuminated Pathways v Aston Martin Lagonda, (Case No.:6:11cv34 (Judge Love) and Intravisual v Fujitsu (Case No. 2:10cv090) (Judge Folsom). Judge Love has also posted the E-discovery Model Order on his website alerting counsel appearing before him that it is a representative example of an order typically used by him in patent matters. 

            I have heard that the model order is also gaining some traction in Delaware and other patent-heavy jurisdictions.  I will continue to look for cases that adopt the model order. If any readers are aware of any cases that do implement the model order or its provisions, please let me know.

June 10, 2011

"Predictive Coding" is Not a Registered Trademark

Uspto Confusion around usage of the term "predictive coding" arose this week after Recommind commented on its patent situation. The skinny: Recommind obtained a patent on predictive coding technology and methods, but the San Francisco company does not have a registered trademark on the term itself, and so anybody can use it freely. Patents and trademarks are completely unrelated to each other.

Recommind applied for a registered trademark on the term a couple of years ago and began using the TM symbol. A half-dozen of the many examples are hereherehereherehere, and here.

"We did it because we anticipated that we would soon change the TM to an ®, which turned out not to be the case," said Recommind's general counsel and vice president of marketing Craig Carpenter told me today, following his related remarks yesterday to Christopher Danzig at AboveTheLaw.com and Barry Murphy at eDiscoveryJournal.com

Continue reading ""Predictive Coding" is Not a Registered Trademark" »

Sign Up for the E-Discovery and Compliance Newsletter

An Affiliate of the Law.com Network

From the Law.com Newswire

Sign up to receive Legal Blog Watch by email
View a Sample



Contact EDD Update


Subscribe to this blog's feed



RSS Feed: LTN Podcast

Monica Bay's Law Technology Now Podcasts are also available as an RSS feed.

Go to RSS Subscribe page




March 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Blog Directory - Blogged