global patent litigation: and where to win - le cabinet · global patent litigation: how and where...

Global patent litigation: how and where to win January 2015

Véron & Associés 1

Global Patent Litigation: How and Where to Win

Asian tour January 2015

Part I: Global Forum ShoppingFrance

1.1. Executive Summary (5 minutes)1.1.1. Main Characteristics of Forum1.1.2. Available offensive and defensive actions1.1.3. Available remedies for a patentee

1.2. Key data regarding patent litigation in the forum (10 minutes)

1.2.1. How many cases initiated and decided (first instance and appeal)?1.2.2. Fields of technology1.2.3. Who are the claimant?1.2.4. What are the chances of success (patentee v. accused infringer)?1.2.5. How long does it take?1.2.6. How much does it cost?

2



Global Forum ShoppingFrance

1.1. Executive Summary (5 minutes)

1.1.1. Main Characteristics of Forum

1.1.2. Available offensive and defensive actions

1.1.3. Available remedies for a patentee

1.1.4. Duration of proceedings

3

French Courts structure

Average of 180 decisions a year

4 panels (“sections”) of 3 judges

12 IP specialist judges

Average of 80 decisions a year

2 panels (“sections”) of 3 judges

6 IP specialist judges

The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has exclusive jurisdiction for patent cases

Around 20 patent cases decided a year

1. Main characteristics of Forum

4



Offensive and defensive actions

Offensive actions: Cease and desist letters (never compulsory) Action for patent infringement Preliminary injunctions Customs actions

(Stronger since Act of 11 March 2014)

Defensive actions: Opposition procedure for European patents only

(no opposition for French patents) Patent revocation proceedings

(Be carefull: statutes of limitation of 5 years) Action for a declaration of non infringement

(a prelitigation phase is compulsory) Declaration of non‐essentiality for Standard Essential Patents

5

Infringement and invalidityare decided by the same court

Unified system > one judgment decides on: Patent construction Patent validity Patent infringement

The judgment also decides on: Injunction which is of right (usually enforceable pending appeal) Damages or Damage enquiry + account on damages

(also enforceable pending appeal) Other remedies requested

– Publication of the decision

– Recall and destruction of products

Contribution to the costs of the winning party

6



Duration of patent proceedings

7

Global Forum Shopping

1.2. Key data regarding patent litigation in the forum (10 minutes)

1.2.1. How many cases initiated and decided (first instance and appeal)?

1.2.2. Fields of technology

1.2.3. Who are the claimant?

1.2.4. What are the chances of success (patentee v. accused infringer)?

1.2.5. How much does it cost?

8



2000 ‐ 2014 (15 years):analysis of 4311 decisions

9

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Moyenne

TGI Paris 165 165 185 179 153 201 228 202 155 222 199 192 200 218 164 2828 189

CA Paris 65 69 65 68 76 85 86 76 64 81 97 84 91 94 69 1170 78

Cour de cassation 15 14 24 21 23 17 12 28 25 23 21 31 18 22 19 313 21

Total 245 248 274 268 252 303 326 306 244 326 317 307 309 334 252 4311 287

TGI Paris ‐ Nature of cases(2000 ‐ June 2014)

10



TGI Paris ‐ Nature of patents invoked(1990 ‐ June 2014)

European patents became the majority in 2009

11

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Brevets français

Brevets européens

17%

50%

50%

83%

TGI Paris ‐ Nationality of parties(2000 – June 2014)

12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

ILLUFICADKESSEBEJPGBIT

CHNLDEUS

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

MCTWCASEKRJPNLESGBBECNCHITUSDE



TGI Paris ‐ Validity and infringement FR/EP(2000 – June 2014)

13

TGI Paris ‐ Validity and infringement FR/EP(2000 – June 2014)

14



TGI Paris ‐ Validity and infringementEuropean patents (2000‐2009 v. 2010‐2014)

2000-2009 2010-2014

15

TGI Paris ‐ Patent litigation by industry including patentee win rate

(2000 – June 2014)

16

12

16

26

30

32

46

56

69

82

109

131

137

246

25%

50%

27%

63%

16%

20%

18%

22%

28%

37%

40%

34%

40%

0 50 100 150 200 250

Biochemistry

Telecoms

Entertainment

IT

Pharma

Chemistry

Physics

Medicine

Electricaltechniques

Construction

Householdproducts

Industrialtechniques

Mechanicalengineering

Win rate pertechnical field

Number ofpatents pertechnical field

2000-1st half of 2014



First instance decision is often decisive

Cour d’Appel of Paris2000 ‐ June 2014 Judgmentsaffirmed / reversed

Cour de Cassation2000‐2013(2014 data NA)Decision quashed / appeal rejected

Affirmed50%

Partially affirmed

34%

Reversed16%

17

Cour d’Appel of Paris ‐ Validity and infringement(2000‐2014)

18



Cour d’Appel of Paris ‐ Validity and infringementEuropean patents (2000‐2009 v. 2010‐June 2014)

2000-2009 2010-2014

19

Average costs

First instance proceedings

– Simple matter: €100.000 ‐ €200.000

$120.000 ‐ $240.000

– Average matter: €200.000 ‐ €300.000

$240.000 ‐ $350.000

– Difficult matter: €300.000 ‐ €500.000

$350.000 ‐ $600.000

Appeal: 70% of costs of 1st instance

20



Part II Procedural and substantive issuesFrance (10 minutes)

2.1. Interim injunctions

2.2. Proving your case

2.2.1. Gathering of evidence

2.2.2 Role of experts

2.3. Damages calculation and damage assessment proceedings

21

Preliminary injunctionPreliminary injunctions available: decided by the presiding judge (or judge in charge of case management) quite difficult to obtain

(patent validity and infringement must be clear and strong) rarely granted ex parte

(urgency not sufficient to justify ex parte)

Duration of preliminary injunction procedure: 1 to 4 months for ordinary matters a few days in case of urgency (some pharma matters or for trade show)

Trends: No formal “clear the way doctrine” for generic companies launching a

product at risk A balance of convenience approach is increasingly made by the court Preliminary injunction unlikely to be granted for standard essential

patent22



Preliminary injunctionTGI Paris: 2000 ‐ June 2014

23

4

3

8

1

4

6

3 3

6

8 8

13

9

11

3

1

2

1

0

2

3

2

0

4

1

2

5

3 3

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Preliminary injunction request Preliminary injunction granted

Proving your caseEvidence diagram

24



The saisie‐contrefaçon in short

Very powerful tool Upon authorization granted ex‐parte, a bailiff (a public

officer) assisted by experts chosen by the claimant (patent attorneys) may enter any premises where evidence of infringement might be found: to perform the investigations authorized in the court order; to draft a report handed over to the claimant and later exhibited to the Court

No prima facie evidence is necessary

Even against third parties (e.g. regulatory authorities)

Evidence gathered in France can be used in parallel litigation

25

The saisie‐contrefaçon: search order to preserve evidence

The most efficient way to gather evidence of infringement:

used in 80% of infringement actions

more than 600 saisies are authorized each year by the Court of Paris (in all IP matters)

inexpensive: between €20,000 and €50,000 i.e. $24.000 and $60.000

26



Damages

Damage enquiry very frequently ordered by the court of first instance after a finding of infringement

Lost Profits:

– Calculated on the total infringing sales (including the entire market value and the springboard effect)

– Based on turnover that the patentee (or licensee) would have made on the additional products (incremental profit margin)

– Price erosions and other losses

Lost royalties:

– Calculated on the total infringing sales (including the entire market value and the springboard effect)

– Based on the infringer’s turnover

– Increased royalty rate (50% to 100% mark‐up)

Profit of the infringer

NB: Statutes of limitation for damages is now 5 years

27

TGI Paris (2000 ‐ June 2014)Average amount of damages: €260,000 i.e. $310.000

28



TGI Paris (2000 ‐ June 2014)The greatest damages awarded

(costs under Art. 700 CPC not taken into account – advance payments excluded – settlement agreement excluded)

Date Parties Total damages

14/01/2009 Agilent Technology Deutschand GmbH, Hewlett-Packard GmbH / Waters Corporation, Waters SAS 4 317 180 €

09/10/2009 Legrand, Legrand SNC / Alternative Elec 3 301 000 €

25/06/2010 Technogenia / Martec anciennement Soneco, Ateliers Joseph Mary, Bernard Mary Industries B.M.I ancie 2 735 013 €

14/09/2007 Philips Electronics / Manufacturing Advanced Media Europe 2 000 000 €

14/05/2003 Dentsply Research & Development Corporation / Electro Medical Systems 1 256 178 €

27/09/2013 Bobst / Heidelberg Postpress Deutschland 1 212 094 €

29/10/2008 L'Air Liquide/ Yara France 1 195 050 €

16/09/2009 Hager Security anciennement Atral / Cedom, Leroy Merlin France 1 184 806 €

09/11/2004 Schneider Electric Industries / Wenzhou Fly-Dragon Electric 1 000 000 €

16/11/2012 Santos / Robot-Coupe 1 000 000 €

12/09/2007 SEB / De Longhi 989 858 €

08/03/2006 Citec Environnement / K.A. France, Ssi Schaeffer 693 653 €

26/03/2010 Brandt Industries / Whirlpool France 651 446 €

28/01/2009 Treves / Visteon Systèmes Intérieurs 530 000 €

10/07/2002 Sedac-Mecobel / J.P. Gruhier SA, Styling 517 036 €

06/12/2013 Anthogyr / Apol 500 000 €

29

TGI Paris (2000 ‐ June 2014)The largest advance payments awarded

Date Parties Advance payments

09/02/2007 Ethypharm / Laboratoires Fournier 10 000 000 €

29/06/2012 ECA / BAE SYSTEMS 6 000 000 €

17/03/2009 Micsystemes / Ouizille, Bourbouloux, Financiere Libertel 16, Acentic 2 600 000 €

29/06/2004 Technogenia / Martec, Ateliers Joseph Mary, Bmi (Martec), Actciale, Françis Barrat 2 000 000 €

07/04/2009 Instrumentation Laboratory / Diagnostica Stago 2 000 000 €

22/11/2013 Manitou / Haulotte 1 700 000 €

25/03/2009 Novartis AG / Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Johnson & Johnson Medical, Ethicon 1 000 000 €

07/09/2012 Time Sport International / Decathlon, D-H-G Knauer 600 000 €

06/06/2007 Rotanotice / M.Y. Healthcare France 500 000 €

23/06/2011 Koninklijke Philips Electronics / TX Western, CDVD 500 000 €

25/05/2010 Valeo Vision, Valeo Servise / Aniel, Autodistribution, Commerce Rechange Automobiles Cora 400 000 €

09/10/2001 Citec Environnement / K.A France, SSI Schaeffer (Yutz), SSI Schaeffer (Lognes) 304 899 €

21/12/2012 Alkermes Pharma Ireland venant aux droits de Elan Pharma International / Ethypharm 300 000 €

09/10/2001 Sara Lee De N.V., Sara Lee De France / La Johnson Francaise 250 000 €

28/03/2000 Glaxo Operation UK Ltd / Laboratoire Flavelab 228 674 €

19/10/2004 SEB / De Longhi 220 000 €

30



Part III. Strategic considerations(5 minutes)

3.1. Pros and Cons

3.2. Hot topics in the forum

31

France : pros and cons

A reasonable place to litigate (if you are not in a hurry) Pros:

– Large market– Specialist patent judges, reasonably patent friendly– Reasoned opinions– Saisie‐contrefaçonmakes gathering evidence of infringement

fast, easy and inexpensive– Injunction is a right (even for SEP)– Detailed calculation of damages– Reasonable costs

Cons:– 18 to 24 months for first instance decision– Preliminary injunctions difficult to obtain

32



Hot topics

Post grant amendment

Invalidity arguments: sufficiency and added matter

Standard essential patents:

– Availability of injunctions(decision expected early 2015)

– Definition of FRAND license terms

Statutes of limitation for patent revocation actions(decision expected early 2015)

33

Thank you !Speakers

C. Gregory Gramenopoulos ‐ USA

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

[email protected]

Christopher Thornham ‐ UK

Taylor Wessing LLP

[email protected]

Thomas Bouvet – France

Sabine Agé – France

Véron & Associés, France

[email protected]

[email protected]

Roland Küppers ‐ Germany

Taylor Wessingr.kü[email protected]

Lena Shen – China

Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency Ltd.

shenlena@san‐you.com

Shinichi Murata – Japan

Kaneko & Iwamatsu

[email protected]

global patent litigation: and where to win - le cabinet · global patent litigation: how and where...

Documents