USPTO Grants H5 Patent for Its TAR Process

We 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.

Eastern District of Texas Model Order for Patent EDD

Today'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

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.

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.

The Elephant in the Patent Courtroom

Mark 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

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.

"Predictive Coding" is Not a Registered Trademark

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 here, here, here, here, here, 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.