Not every person is a match for every job. Patents are expensive and complicated legal documents. No less authority than the US Supreme Court noted long ago that “[t]he specification and claims of a patent… constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy.” Topliff v. Topliff, 145 US 156 (1892). It stands to reason, then, that care should be taken to choose the right person for the job of drafting your patents.
So why are companies increasingly leaving their patent drafting to attorneys with no patent enforcement experience? Likely it’s the current fascination with patent data that is driving this trend. Companies are managing their patent portfolios on a cost as opposed to a value basis. What is the cost per patent? Patents per employee? Cost per claim? Average pendency? Time per amendment filed? Etc.
Ask a successful patent litigator, however, and you will get a very different set of patent portfolio metrics focused on value as opposed to cost. How has the market changed based on the issuance of your patent? How has your market share changed? How have competitors reacted to your patent? What royalties/damages have you collected? And finally has your patent program funded itself while your business has grown?
A well-drafted patent blocks a competitor from offering a certain feature (or combination) in the marketplace. The patent owner thereby enjoys a competitive advantage for a limited time. None of this should be new or controversial to anyone familiar with the patent landscape.
But, the two things that should be immediately apparent in this landscape, apparently aren’t. First, the decision about what patents to file is critical to the strategy and success of any business. If the filed patents don’t block competitors from offering a feature customers want to buy, the patents are an expensive waste of money.
Second, if the patents can not be enforced to prevent a competitor offering the target feature, the patents are also an expensive waste of money.
The focus of this Post is the first issue identified above, namely selecting the right patents to file.
Shifting patent drafting between a variable pay-as-you-go cost with outside counsel and a fixed cost with employees cycles with the managerial fashion of the day. No matter the managerial preference, strong arguments exist for making sure the patent drafters of the moment have significant litigation experience.
Employee drafters are captive and have direct access to your technical and product staff, but what looks like synergy can easily become a straightjacket with patents drafted by rote to products. The best argument for in-house patent drafters is that they in theory have direct regular access to company management so that the patent strategy follows the business strategy. The patent claims are designed to shape and mold the marketplace, blocking competitors from features and not just covering products. Drafters need to interface with business managers, receive customer feedback and be involved with solutions to customer issues, so patent claims can be block competitors from solutions customers seek. Patents directed to those issues have the best chance of adding company value, if not fully funding the patent program.
Outside drafters, while less likely to have access to business managers, may through their representation of other clients have a better sense of competitive landscape and possibly also have more litigation experience giving them a perspective on patent drafting which is much less likely to be product based. They are freer to be purpose-based drafters as opposed to product-based drafters of patents. And unless they too are subject to the tyranny of data analysis they can focus patents on features in a sustained and strategic effort to carve out market segments for their clients and add value to their businesses.
In either case, patents drafted by litigators with significant enforcement experience are better patents. These drafters know how seemingly plain language gets twisted into knots during litigation and can make simple claim language adjustments which take away whole arguments in a litigation context. If they are highly skilled, they can write patents competitors won’t even challenge. Patents that judges and juries understand on their face, robbing competitors of legal argument and building client value.
WHIPgroup is leading counsel for U.S. and international technology companies. We specialize in patent and trademark law.
Recently, WHIPGROUP engaged in an arbitration that included a five day hearing in the City. Here are some thoughts about why arbitration is different (not clearly better or worse) than litigation. Venue The AAA arbitral [Read More…]
WHIPGroup previously filed a Motion to Dismiss a patent infringement suit filed against its client TomTom in the Western District of Texas. Rather than opposing WHIPGroup’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff MDSP Technologies LLC voluntarily dismissed [Read More…]
WHIPgroup succeeded in having anticipation and indefiniteness rejections overturned by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The claimed invention relates to a sequencing station that manages both sequencing and restacking tasks. The Examiner had [Read More…]