Legal Departments of the Year, Patent Strategy, Emerging Companies: Pure Storage
The IP pros at Pure Storage increased their patent applications by over 100 percent, in no small part through the power of collaboration.
November 13, 2017 at 04:30 AM
5 minute read
Michael Moore, Director, Product Legal Services at Pure Storage. (Handout photo).
Pure Storage's in-house attorneys have underscored innovation and collaboration in their approach to patent strategy—and the results over the past year or so have been pretty staggering.
The company, which employs seven in-house attorneys, managed to file 231 patent applications on Pure Storage innovations from July 2016 through June 2017. This is an increase of over 100 percent from the number of applications filed in the period of July 2015 through June 2016.
So, how do they do it?
Michael Moore, director of product legal services at Pure Storage, explained that much of this success is all about the legal team's ability to “offload a lot of the burden off engineers” that comes with the process of filing applications. Engineers at the company have told Moore that the Pure Storage legal team's efforts have made it much easier to do business.
It often takes hours for engineers from within larger companies to sit down and put together invention disclosure forms, which can be a deterrent to the patent process. By contrast, at Pure Storage, the legal department and outside counsel will sit down with the engineer for an interview that usually takes about 20 minutes, and the IP team and lawyers will draft a disclosure based on the interview, have the engineer review it, then submit it to Pure Storage's internal patent review board.
“It's easy for [the engineers], just grab a cup of coffee and talk to us,” said Moore.
Pure Storage's legal team has worked hard to develop metrics and processes around its strategic defensive patenting work.
“We look at IP as both an important asset and a strategic deterrent,” Moore said.
According to Moore, metrics leveraged by the legal team include total patent applications and granted patents per product, per geography, and per technology category. As far as processes are concerned, the legal and technical teams meet regularly and review competitive product offerings and public collateral as well as identify Pure Storage patented IP that could have relevance to these competitive product offerings.
Pure Storage's in-house attorneys have underscored innovation and collaboration in their approach to patent strategy—and the results over the past year or so have been pretty staggering.
The company, which employs seven in-house attorneys, managed to file 231 patent applications on Pure Storage innovations from July 2016 through June 2017. This is an increase of over 100 percent from the number of applications filed in the period of July 2015 through June 2016.
So, how do they do it?
It often takes hours for engineers from within larger companies to sit down and put together invention disclosure forms, which can be a deterrent to the patent process. By contrast, at Pure Storage, the legal department and outside counsel will sit down with the engineer for an interview that usually takes about 20 minutes, and the IP team and lawyers will draft a disclosure based on the interview, have the engineer review it, then submit it to Pure Storage's internal patent review board.
“It's easy for [the engineers], just grab a cup of coffee and talk to us,” said Moore.
Pure Storage's legal team has worked hard to develop metrics and processes around its strategic defensive patenting work.
“We look at IP as both an important asset and a strategic deterrent,” Moore said.
According to Moore, metrics leveraged by the legal team include total patent applications and granted patents per product, per geography, and per technology category. As far as processes are concerned, the legal and technical teams meet regularly and review competitive product offerings and public collateral as well as identify Pure Storage patented IP that could have relevance to these competitive product offerings.
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
© 2024 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 AllAttorney of the Year Finalist: Michael Rubin, Latham & Watkins
Attorney of the Year Winner: Kalpana Srinivasan, Susman Godfrey
Cooley Litigation Rainmaker Mike Rhodes Set to Retire: 'It's a Good Time to Hang It Up and Do Something Else'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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