Photo of Christopher Duerden

Chris is a patent attorney whose practice focuses on IP litigation. He is based in the firm’s Boston office and has worked on a variety of International Trade Commission cases involving mechanical, electrical, software, and computer engineering technology. Earlier in his career, Chris founded and ran a company that developed and sold kits for a Linux-powered gaming system.

In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question whether the inter partes review (IPR) process violates the U.S. Constitution by “extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.”

In 2001, Oil States Energy Services LLC (“Oil States”) was granted U.S. Patent No. 6,179,053 for a lockdown mechanism to ensure a mandrel is locked in an operative position during fracking.  Oil States sued Greene’s Energy Group LLC (“Greene’s Energy”) in the Eastern District of Texas in 2012 for infringing this patent, and in turn, Greene’s Energy petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute an IPR on the patent.  This petition was granted. After the proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the administrative body of the USPTO that handles IPRs, concluded the challenged patent claims were invalid.  Oil States appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the decision, and Oil States then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide the Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

New rules for patent cases in the Northern District of California will significantly affect litigation and settlement of cases in Silicon Valley’s backyard.  Lawyers litigating cases in the district after the January 17, 2017 change should be wary of the new requirements that set the Northern District of California apart.  These changes fall into three main categories.

The first change affects the initial Case Management Conference under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26.  In the Case Management Statement, parties now must provide non-binding, good-faith estimates of the damages expected in the case, as well as an explanation for the estimates.  Patent L.R. 2-1(b)(5). If a party cannot provide this information they must explain why, state what information they would need to do so, and state when the party believes they would be in a position to provide the estimate and explanation.

Continue Reading New Rules in the Northern District of California Aim to Encourage Patent Case Settlements