IP: Four tips for the successful mediation of patent cases
Patent litigation continues to be a booming business.
March 19, 2013 at 08:01 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Patent litigation continues to be a booming business. While that may be good news for lawyers in private practice, it presents serious concerns for in-house counsel. These hotly contested and protracted cases can cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to prosecute or defend. The risks of litigation could include a large damage award for infringement, an injunction preventing use of the technology or a finding that the patent is invalid. In view of these risks, in-house counsel should consider ways to minimize financial exposure to their companies while retaining some degree of control over the litigation process. Mediation is one such option. Here are some tips for the successful mediation of a patent case.
1. Selection of the mediator. The selection of a strong mediator who understands the legal issues and procedural complexities of a patent case is critical to success. A mediator who tests the strengths and weaknesses of arguments can serve as a “reality check” to the lawyers and their clients, thereby facilitating settlement. It is also important to choose a mediator willing to invest substantial time before and, if necessary, after the mediation session. If a settlement is not reached at the first mediation, the mediator should work with the parties until the case is resolved. Finally, a good mediator must be willing and able to craft creative solutions to complex problems. Look for a mediator who can “think outside the box.”
2. Timing of mediation. There are three optimum times for the mediation of a patent case. The first opportunity is after the parties exchange preliminary infringement contentions, preliminary invalidity contentions and claim construction statements. Most jurisdictions with active patent dockets have local rules that require the parties to make these disclosures at various intervals within the first three or four months after the initial case management conference. By mediating after exchanging preliminary disclosures and claim construction statements, the parties can explore settlement before incurring substantial legal fees.
The second opportunity for mediation is after the court issues its claim construction ruling. Once the parties know how the court will interpret the disputed claim terms, they can more reasonably assess the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments relating to infringement. Mediation after claim construction, but before fact and expert discovery begins in earnest, also can result in a substantial cost savings. Even if the case does not settle after an early mediation, it can lay the groundwork for subsequent settlement discussions.
The third opportunity for mediation is after the court rules on summary judgment motions. Although less desirable from a cost savings standpoint, sometimes discovery and court rulings are necessary to make informed settlement decisions.
3. Exchange of information. One pitfall to an early mediation is the lack of information. In order for a mediation to be productive, it is important that parties exchange relevant information in advance. The information required to make an informed settlement analysis varies from case to case, but may include prior art materials, contracts, licenses, sales data and settlement agreements with other parties.
4. Party representatives. The potential for a successful mediation often depends on who participates in the process. Party representatives attending the mediation, whether in-house counsel or business executives, should have full authority to negotiate and ultimately settle the case. It is also important that the party representative with ultimate settlement authority attend the mediation in person. Participation by phone does not allow the mediator to develop a personal rapport with the representative—a connection that greatly enhances the opportunity for a settlement.
In sum, a negotiated settlement through mediation can minimize the risks and expenses of costly patent litigation. Following these four suggestions will make the mediation more productive and greatly enhance the possibility of settlement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250