Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a Markman hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses. S.S. White Burs, Inc. v. Neo-Flo, Inc., No. 02-3656 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2003). The court recognized that some of the material requested might be privileged and that such material should be listed in a privilege log and not disclosed, but concluded that “[c]laim interpretations are not protected by the attorney client privilege, nor are they attorney work product, since Plaintiffs will have to disclose them to prove their case.” Additionally, the court required the plaintiffs to identify non-privileged material on which their claim construction relied, “such as other patents, Patent Office decisions, technical literature, or the like.” Although the court indicated that the plaintiffs were correct in their assertion that the defendants had no basis for demanding production of information in a specific form, such as a claim chart, the court ordered the plaintiffs to produce such a chart “because this is a clear and frequently-used means for comparing patent claims.”
Practice Point
Be aware that, prior to a Markman hearing, a party in a patent infringement case may be able to compel from the patent owner discovery of non-privileged claim charts, claim constructions, or infringement analyses.
Andrew J. Olek is an intellectual property attorney with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson in Washington, DC.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a Markman hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses. S.S. White Burs, Inc. v. Neo-Flo, Inc., No. 02-3656 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2003). The court recognized that some of the material requested might be privileged and that such material should be listed in a privilege log and not disclosed, but concluded that “[c]laim interpretations are not protected by the attorney client privilege, nor are they attorney work product, since Plaintiffs will have to disclose them to prove their case.” Additionally, the court required the plaintiffs to identify non-privileged material on which their claim construction relied, “such as other patents, Patent Office decisions, technical literature, or the like.” Although the court indicated that the plaintiffs were correct in their assertion that the defendants had no basis for demanding production of information in a specific form, such as a claim chart, the court ordered the plaintiffs to produce such a chart “because this is a clear and frequently-used means for comparing patent claims.”
Practice Point
Be aware that, prior to a Markman hearing, a party in a patent infringement case may be able to compel from the patent owner discovery of non-privileged claim charts, claim constructions, or infringement analyses.
Andrew J. Olek is an intellectual property attorney with
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.