SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 28
11
Covenants Not to Sue in the
Wake of Already, LLC v. Nike
© 2013 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
by: Michael A. Ciceroby: Michael A. Cicero
Atlanta OfficeAtlanta Office
Patent Legal Issues MeetingPatent Legal Issues Meeting
March 12, 2013March 12, 2013
2
Womble Carlyle presentations are intended to
provide general information about significant
legal developments and should not be
construed as legal advice regarding any
specific facts and circumstances, nor should
they be construed as advertisements for legal
services.
DISCLAIMER
33
Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor USA, Inc.,
800 F.Supp.2d 1116 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Already, LLC v. Nike,
___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 721 (Jan. 9, 2013)
Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Techtronic Indus.
Co., Ltd.,
No. 1:09:3308-WSD (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2013)
Decisions Covered Here:Decisions Covered Here:
44
General Legal Principles on
Covenants Not to Sue
55
General PrinciplesGeneral Principles
• DJ Plaintiff’s Burden: “Subject matter jurisdiction in a
declaratory judgment suit depends upon the existence of ‘a
substantial controversy, between the parties having adverse legal
interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
issuance of a declaratory judgment,’ and the plaintiff bears the
burden of proving the existence of such a controversy
throughout the litigation.” Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd.,
606 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007)).
66
General PrinciplesGeneral Principles
• Covenant Content is Key: “[W]hether a covenant not to sue
will divest the trial court of jurisdiction depends on what is
covered by the covenant.” Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex
Eyewear, Inc., 556 F.3d 1294, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
• Jurisdiction Divested: “[A] covenant not to sue for patent
infringement divests the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction
over claims that the patent is invalid, because the covenant
eliminates any case or controversy between the parties.” Dow
Jones, 606 F.3d at 1346.
77
General PrinciplesGeneral Principles
• Covenant Applies to Continuations Unless Covenant
Specifies Otherwise. Gen. Protect Group, Inc. v. Leviton Mfg.
Co., 651 F.3d 1335, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
• Once Given, Covenant Might be Irrevocable. See ICOS
Vision Sys. Corp., N.V. v. Scanner Techs. Corp., No. 10 Civ.
0604, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19886, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15,
2012) (Merely because covenant was not supported by
consideration did not make it revocable; promissory estoppel can
serve as substitute for consideration, which defendant proved;
patentee thus legally estopped from revoking covenant.).
88
Example of Pre-Already
Assignment of Burdens:
Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor
USA, Inc., 800 F.Supp.2d 1116
(E.D. Cal. 2011)
99
Facts:
• Technology Licensing Corporation (“TLC”) sues Technicolor
for infringement of 2 patents. Technicolor counterclaims for
DJs of noninfringement and invalidity.
Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011)
• Technicolor serves an FRCP 68 Offer of Judgment. TLC files
Notice of Acceptance of that Offer as to “claims by [TLC]
against [Technicolor].”
• Clerk enters judgment on TLC’s claims. Case then
administratively closed. Technicolor moves to reopen,
asserting its invalidity CC was not encompassed in Offer of
Judgment.
1010
Facts (cont’d):
• In response to the Motion to Reopen, TLC offers following
covenant not to sue: “TLC unconditionally agrees not to sue
[Technicolor] for infringement as to any claim of the patents-
in-suit based upon the products currently manufactured and
sold by [Technicolor].”
Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011)
• TLC then moves to dismiss on basis under FRCP 12(b)(1) on
basis of covenant.
1111
Technicolor’s arguments:
• Covenant is insufficient because it does not apply to: “(1) its
activities, specifically inducement of infringement, and (2)
future products . . . .”
• Re (2), covenant’s use of “currently manufactured” is
ambiguous and could be interpreted to exclude future
products.
Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011)
1212
Court’s rejection of Technicolor’s arguments:
• Re (1), TLC acknowledged on reply that its covenant was
broad enough to encompass activities relating to the covered
products. On that basis, court finds no case or controversy
as to any of Technicolor’s related activities.
Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011)
• Re (2): “To demonstrate a case or controversy, Technicolor
would thus need to provide the court with information
regarding its intention to produce new products in the future
that might infringe on TLC’s patents. It has not done so.
Accordingly, there is no ‘substantial controversy [ ]’ . . . and
the court will grant TLC’s motion to dismiss . . . .”
1313
Already, LLC v. Nike,
___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 721
(Jan. 9, 2013)
1414
Procedural History
• Already makes line of shoes known as “Sugars” and “Soulja
Boys.” Nike files suit, alleging that both lines infringe and
dilute its “Air Force I” TM.
• Already counterclaims for DJ of trademark invalidity.
• 8 months into lawsuit, Nike issues covenant not to sue, then
moves to dismiss Already’s CC. District court grants motion,
and 2d Circuit affirms. Supreme Court grants certiorari.
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike
1515
Excerpts from Nike’s Covenant:
(133 S.Ct. at 728):
“‘[Nike] unconditionally and irrevocably covenants to refrain
from making any claim(s) or demand(s) . . . against Already or
any of its . . . related business entities . . . [including]
distributors . . . and employees of such entities and all
customers . . . on account of any possible cause of action
based on or involving trademark infringement, unfair
competition, or dilution, under state or federal law . . . relating
to the NIKE Mark based on the appearance of any of
Already’s current and/or previous footwear product designs,
and any colorable imitations thereof, regardless of whether
that footwear is produced . . . or otherwise used in commerce
before or after the Effective Date of this Covenant.’”
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike
1616
• Voluntary Cessation Doctrine:
• “[I]t was Nike’s burden to show that it ‘could not reasonably
be expected’ to resume its enforcement efforts against
Already. Burden characterized as “formidable.” Id. at 727
(citation omitted).
• “[O]nce it is ‘absolutely clear’ that challenged conduct
cannot ‘reasonably be expected to recur,’ the fact that some
individuals may base decisions on ‘conjectural or
hypothetical’ speculation does not give rise to the sort of
‘concrete’ and ‘actual’ injury necessary to establish Article
III standing.” Id. at 730 (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Supreme Court’s Analysis: Supreme Court’s Analysis
1717
• “We agree with the Court of Appeals that ‘it is hard to imagine
a scenario that would potentially infringe [Nike’s trademark]
and yet not fall under the Covenant.’” Id. at 728.
• “Given the covenant’s broad language, and given that Already
has asserted no concrete plans to engage in conduct not
covered by the covenant, we can conclude the case is moot
because the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected
to recur.” Id. at 729.
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Supreme Court’s Analysis: Supreme Court’s Analysis
1818
• “Under the voluntary cessation doctrine, Nike bears the
‘formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the
allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected
to recur.’” Id. at 733 (emphasis added; citation omitted).
• “This brief, separate concurrence is written to underscore that
covenants like the one Nike filed here ought not to be taken as
an automatic means for the party who first charged a
competitor with trademark infringement suddenly to abandon
the suit without incurring the risk of an ensuing adverse
adjudication.” Id.
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Justice Kennedy’s: Justice Kennedy’s
Concurring OpinionConcurring Opinion
1919
• “The formidable burden to show the case is moot ought to
require the trademark holder, at the outset, to make a
substantial showing that the business of the competitor and its
supply network will not be disrupted or weakened by satellite
litigation over mootness or by any threat latent in the terms of
the covenant itself.” Id. at 734.
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Justice Kennedy’s: Justice Kennedy’s
Concurring OpinionConcurring Opinion
• “It would be most unfair to allow the party who commences
the suit to use its delivery of a covenant not to sue as an
opportunity to force a competitor to expose its future business
plans or to otherwise disadvantage the competitor and its
business network, all in aid of deeming moot a suit the
trademark holder itself chose to initiate.” Id.
2020
“Courts should proceed with caution before ruling that they
can be used to terminate litigation. An insistence on the proper
allocation of the formidable burden on the party asserting
mootness is one way to ensure that covenants are not automatic
mechanisms for trademark holders to use courts to intimidate
competitors without, at the same time, assuming the risk that
their trademark will be found invalid and unenforceable.” Id.
at 734 (emphasis added).
Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Justice Kennedy’s: Justice Kennedy’s
Concurring OpinionConcurring Opinion
2121
Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Techtronic
Indus. Co., Ltd.,
No. 1:09:3308-WSD
(N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2013)
2222
Procedural History
• Nov. 2009: Hitachi sues defendants for infringement of 4
patents related to tools. Count I of complaint alleges
infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,521,892 (“ the ’892 patent”).
Defendants (“Ds”) assert counterclaims, including a DJ of
invalidity of the ’892 Patent.
Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki
• March 2012: Hitachi moves for dismissal of Count I under
FRCP 41(a)(2) and 12(b)(1). Brief in support of motion
recites covenant not to sue, apparently not issued previously.
• May 2012: Ds file MSJ of invalidity of ’892 Patent.
2323
“[Hitachi] covenants not to sue [Ds] for infringement of [the ’892
patent] based on [Ds’] manufacture, importation, use, sale, and/or
offer for sale, of products on or before March 13, 2012. [Hitachi]
covenants not to sue [Ds] for infringement of the ‘892 patent based
on [Ds’] future manufacture, importation, use, sale, and/or offer
for sale, of any and all products being offered for sale by [Ds] on
March 13, 2012 as well as any products that are the same as or
substantially identical to a product being offered for sale by [Ds]
on March 13, 2012. [Hitachi] covenants not to sue or otherwise
seek to hold [Ds’] customers liable based upon the importation,
distribution, use sale and offering for sale of the products that are
subject to this covenant not [to] sue for the infringement of the
‘892 patent.” Hitachi Koki, slip op. at 10 (emphasis added).
Hitachi’s Covenant Not to SueHitachi’s Covenant Not to Sue
2424
• FRCP 41(a)(2) Not Proper Rule for Voluntarily Dismissing
Less than All of Case: “Courts uniformly have held that Rule
41(a) does not permit the dismissal of individual claims from a
multi-claim action but only authorizes the dismissal of an entire
action.” Hitachi Koki, slip op. at 7 (emphasis added). “[T]he
proper way for a plaintiff to remove a single claim is to move to
amend the complaint under Rule 15.” Id. at 8 & n.2.
Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki: ND Ga’s Analysis: ND Ga’s Analysis
• Covenant Formalities Still Important: “If the covenant was
not formally executed and delivered to Defendants, the Court
finds that a covenant was not issued in this case and thus there
exists a case or controversy regarding validity of the ’892
patent. On this ground alone, [Hitachi]’s motion to dismiss
would be required to be denied.” Id. at 10 n.3.
2525
• “[T]he covenant does not apply to specific potentially-infringing
products that Defendants have introduced or will introduce after
March 12, 2012.” Id.
Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki: ND Ga’s Analysis: ND Ga’s Analysis
• “[The covenant] does not cover any product manufactured,
imported, used, sold, or offered for sale using the ‘892 patent
technology that is not substantially similar to Defendants’
products as they existed on March 13, 2012.” Id. at 12.
• An employee of one of the Ds testified that they have “concrete
plans” to launch products in 2012 that use the ’892 patent
technology but yet that are not “‘the same as or substantially
identical to’ products existing as of March 13, 2012.” Id. at 11.
2626
Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki: ND Ga’s Analysis: ND Ga’s Analysis
• Ds’ MSJ of Obviousness Denied for failure to present evidence
regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 16-17.
• RESULT: Court denies Hitachi’s motion. Issue of validity of
the ’892 patent remains a “live” one such that court can consider
Ds’ MSJ of invalidity (obviousness) of that patent. Id. at 13.
Court left open the possibility that Hitachi could frame a more
comprehensive covenant to “remove the threat of litigation
against Defendants for infringement of the ’892 patent,” but that
the covenant Hitachi presented in its motion was not such a
covenant. Id. at 12 n.4.
2727
Take-Away Points
1. The content of any covenant not to sue will be closely scrutinized
in future cases. Learn from Hitachi’s mistakes to draft broad,
effective covenant for patent cases that will comply with Already
v. Nike, and follow Nike’s example for TM cases.
2. Formalities are still important. Ensure that a covenant is signed
and delivered to opponent prior to any dismissal motion.
3. Counsel client about risk of irrevocability of covenant, once
made, and about its application to continuations in patent cases.
4. Get it right the first time. Hitachi could have had its ’892 patent
invalidated but dodged a bullet on summary judgment.
2828
THE ENDTHE END

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike

Business Law Questions And Answers
Business Law Questions And AnswersBusiness Law Questions And Answers
Business Law Questions And AnswersRhonda Coleman
 
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014Amber Carter
 
Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...
Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...
Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
Legal Aspects of Business Law
Legal Aspects of Business LawLegal Aspects of Business Law
Legal Aspects of Business LawOmkarKodak
 
Heath Global - 492_B.R._650
Heath Global - 492_B.R._650Heath Global - 492_B.R._650
Heath Global - 492_B.R._650James Glucksman
 
UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021
UK Adjudicators  Newsletter November 2021UK Adjudicators  Newsletter November 2021
UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021SeanGibbs12
 
"Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,...
 	 "Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,... 	 "Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,...
"Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,...Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
 
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESSLEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESSNehaSharma1940
 
PurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze a
PurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze aPurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze a
PurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze ajanekahananbw
 
Conjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperConjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperJaeWon Lee
 
The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)
The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)
The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)Financial Poise
 
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent Review
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent ReviewStays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent Review
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent ReviewKlemchuk LLP
 
Technical Consulting Agreement Is Made Effective
Technical Consulting Agreement Is Made EffectiveTechnical Consulting Agreement Is Made Effective
Technical Consulting Agreement Is Made EffectiveGina Alfaro
 
Ironclad or Leaky Sieve
Ironclad or Leaky SieveIronclad or Leaky Sieve
Ironclad or Leaky SieveRob Lindquist
 
Patents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be InfringedPatents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be Infringedblewisbell
 

Ähnlich wie Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike (20)

P3 Unit 21
P3 Unit 21P3 Unit 21
P3 Unit 21
 
Reicon14 session 3 final ppt
Reicon14 session 3 final pptReicon14 session 3 final ppt
Reicon14 session 3 final ppt
 
Chapter 15: Consideration
Chapter 15: ConsiderationChapter 15: Consideration
Chapter 15: Consideration
 
Business Law Questions And Answers
Business Law Questions And AnswersBusiness Law Questions And Answers
Business Law Questions And Answers
 
UK Adjudicators July 2018 newsletter
UK  Adjudicators July 2018 newsletterUK  Adjudicators July 2018 newsletter
UK Adjudicators July 2018 newsletter
 
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
P4 P5 Contractual Terms In A Standard Form Contract 2014
 
Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...
Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...
Mid-Year Trademark Case Law Update and Discussion on Practice Approach in Chi...
 
Legal Aspects of Business Law
Legal Aspects of Business LawLegal Aspects of Business Law
Legal Aspects of Business Law
 
Heath Global - 492_B.R._650
Heath Global - 492_B.R._650Heath Global - 492_B.R._650
Heath Global - 492_B.R._650
 
UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021
UK Adjudicators  Newsletter November 2021UK Adjudicators  Newsletter November 2021
UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021
 
"Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,...
 	 "Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,... 	 "Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,...
"Insurance Coverage for IP Claims under CGL Advertising Injury Provisions,...
 
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESSLEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
 
PurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze a
PurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze aPurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze a
PurposeThe purpose of this project is to research, analyze a
 
Conjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperConjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paper
 
The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)
The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)
The Intersection of IP & Bankruptcy (Series: Chapter 11 Potpourri)
 
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent Review
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent ReviewStays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent Review
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent Review
 
Good Title
Good TitleGood Title
Good Title
 
Technical Consulting Agreement Is Made Effective
Technical Consulting Agreement Is Made EffectiveTechnical Consulting Agreement Is Made Effective
Technical Consulting Agreement Is Made Effective
 
Ironclad or Leaky Sieve
Ironclad or Leaky SieveIronclad or Leaky Sieve
Ironclad or Leaky Sieve
 
Patents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be InfringedPatents That Cannot Be Infringed
Patents That Cannot Be Infringed
 

Mehr von Michael Cicero

Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdfBoykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdfMichael Cicero
 
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting GenesDNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting GenesMichael Cicero
 
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...Michael Cicero
 
Trademark Laws: Georgia
Trademark Laws: GeorgiaTrademark Laws: Georgia
Trademark Laws: GeorgiaMichael Cicero
 
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough SellDivided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough SellMichael Cicero
 
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)Michael Cicero
 
Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)
Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)
Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)Michael Cicero
 
Inequitable Conduct 2010
Inequitable Conduct 2010Inequitable Conduct 2010
Inequitable Conduct 2010Michael Cicero
 
Divided Patent Infringement - Origins
Divided Patent Infringement - OriginsDivided Patent Infringement - Origins
Divided Patent Infringement - OriginsMichael Cicero
 
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. PatentTransocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. PatentMichael Cicero
 

Mehr von Michael Cicero (12)

Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdfBoykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
Boykin (ND Ga 230301).pdf
 
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting GenesDNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
DNA Patent Law 101: The Myriad Decision and its Impact on Patenting Genes
 
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
IP Litigator article: "Paradise Troubled by Alleged Unfair Competition Involv...
 
Trademark Laws: Georgia
Trademark Laws: GeorgiaTrademark Laws: Georgia
Trademark Laws: Georgia
 
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough SellDivided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
Divided Infringement of Method Claims: A Tough Sell
 
Cardiac Pacemakers
Cardiac PacemakersCardiac Pacemakers
Cardiac Pacemakers
 
Coach v. Becka
Coach v. BeckaCoach v. Becka
Coach v. Becka
 
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
Scrivener's Error Regarding Lanham Act Section 43(c)(6)
 
Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)
Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)
Robert Bosch case (Proving Irreparable Harm)
 
Inequitable Conduct 2010
Inequitable Conduct 2010Inequitable Conduct 2010
Inequitable Conduct 2010
 
Divided Patent Infringement - Origins
Divided Patent Infringement - OriginsDivided Patent Infringement - Origins
Divided Patent Infringement - Origins
 
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. PatentTransocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
Transocean v. Maersk: How an Overseas Offer for Sale Can Infringe a U.S. Patent
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptxCracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptxWorkforce Group
 
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and FestivalsFabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and FestivalsWristbands Ireland
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024Stephan Koning
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.mcshagufta46
 
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story pointsData skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story pointsyasinnathani
 
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)tazeenaila12
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Lviv Startup Club
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsIntellect Design Arena Ltd
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHelene Heckrotte
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessAPCO
 
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptxIntroduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptxJemalSeid25
 
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarNathanielSchmuck
 
AMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdf
AMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdfAMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdf
AMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdfJohnCarloValencia4
 
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfPDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfHajeJanKamps
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato pptElizangelaSoaresdaCo
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBBPMedia1
 
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...Khaled Al Awadi
 
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in JhangMC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in Jhangmcgroupjeya
 
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, OursDeveloping Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, OursKaiNexus
 

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptxCracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
Cracking the ‘Business Process Outsourcing’ Code Main.pptx
 
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and FestivalsFabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
 
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story pointsData skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
Data skills for Agile Teams- Killing story points
 
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
 
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptxIntroduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
 
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
 
AMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdf
AMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdfAMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdf
AMAZON SELLER VIRTUAL ASSISTANT PRODUCT RESEARCH .pdf
 
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdfPDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
PDT 89 - $1.4M - Seed - Plantee Innovations.pdf
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
 
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...NewBase  25 March  2024  Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
NewBase 25 March 2024 Energy News issue - 1710 by Khaled Al Awadi_compress...
 
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in JhangMC Heights construction company in Jhang
MC Heights construction company in Jhang
 
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, OursDeveloping Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
 

Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. Nike

  • 1. 11 Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already, LLC v. Nike © 2013 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP by: Michael A. Ciceroby: Michael A. Cicero Atlanta OfficeAtlanta Office Patent Legal Issues MeetingPatent Legal Issues Meeting March 12, 2013March 12, 2013
  • 2. 2 Womble Carlyle presentations are intended to provide general information about significant legal developments and should not be construed as legal advice regarding any specific facts and circumstances, nor should they be construed as advertisements for legal services. DISCLAIMER
  • 3. 33 Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor USA, Inc., 800 F.Supp.2d 1116 (E.D. Cal. 2011) Already, LLC v. Nike, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 721 (Jan. 9, 2013) Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., Ltd., No. 1:09:3308-WSD (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2013) Decisions Covered Here:Decisions Covered Here:
  • 4. 44 General Legal Principles on Covenants Not to Sue
  • 5. 55 General PrinciplesGeneral Principles • DJ Plaintiff’s Burden: “Subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment suit depends upon the existence of ‘a substantial controversy, between the parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment,’ and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of such a controversy throughout the litigation.” Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd., 606 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007)).
  • 6. 66 General PrinciplesGeneral Principles • Covenant Content is Key: “[W]hether a covenant not to sue will divest the trial court of jurisdiction depends on what is covered by the covenant.” Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 556 F.3d 1294, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2009). • Jurisdiction Divested: “[A] covenant not to sue for patent infringement divests the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over claims that the patent is invalid, because the covenant eliminates any case or controversy between the parties.” Dow Jones, 606 F.3d at 1346.
  • 7. 77 General PrinciplesGeneral Principles • Covenant Applies to Continuations Unless Covenant Specifies Otherwise. Gen. Protect Group, Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 651 F.3d 1335, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). • Once Given, Covenant Might be Irrevocable. See ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., N.V. v. Scanner Techs. Corp., No. 10 Civ. 0604, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19886, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) (Merely because covenant was not supported by consideration did not make it revocable; promissory estoppel can serve as substitute for consideration, which defendant proved; patentee thus legally estopped from revoking covenant.).
  • 8. 88 Example of Pre-Already Assignment of Burdens: Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor USA, Inc., 800 F.Supp.2d 1116 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
  • 9. 99 Facts: • Technology Licensing Corporation (“TLC”) sues Technicolor for infringement of 2 patents. Technicolor counterclaims for DJs of noninfringement and invalidity. Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011) • Technicolor serves an FRCP 68 Offer of Judgment. TLC files Notice of Acceptance of that Offer as to “claims by [TLC] against [Technicolor].” • Clerk enters judgment on TLC’s claims. Case then administratively closed. Technicolor moves to reopen, asserting its invalidity CC was not encompassed in Offer of Judgment.
  • 10. 1010 Facts (cont’d): • In response to the Motion to Reopen, TLC offers following covenant not to sue: “TLC unconditionally agrees not to sue [Technicolor] for infringement as to any claim of the patents- in-suit based upon the products currently manufactured and sold by [Technicolor].” Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011) • TLC then moves to dismiss on basis under FRCP 12(b)(1) on basis of covenant.
  • 11. 1111 Technicolor’s arguments: • Covenant is insufficient because it does not apply to: “(1) its activities, specifically inducement of infringement, and (2) future products . . . .” • Re (2), covenant’s use of “currently manufactured” is ambiguous and could be interpreted to exclude future products. Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011)
  • 12. 1212 Court’s rejection of Technicolor’s arguments: • Re (1), TLC acknowledged on reply that its covenant was broad enough to encompass activities relating to the covered products. On that basis, court finds no case or controversy as to any of Technicolor’s related activities. Tech. LicensingTech. Licensing (E.D. Cal. 2011)(E.D. Cal. 2011) • Re (2): “To demonstrate a case or controversy, Technicolor would thus need to provide the court with information regarding its intention to produce new products in the future that might infringe on TLC’s patents. It has not done so. Accordingly, there is no ‘substantial controversy [ ]’ . . . and the court will grant TLC’s motion to dismiss . . . .”
  • 13. 1313 Already, LLC v. Nike, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 721 (Jan. 9, 2013)
  • 14. 1414 Procedural History • Already makes line of shoes known as “Sugars” and “Soulja Boys.” Nike files suit, alleging that both lines infringe and dilute its “Air Force I” TM. • Already counterclaims for DJ of trademark invalidity. • 8 months into lawsuit, Nike issues covenant not to sue, then moves to dismiss Already’s CC. District court grants motion, and 2d Circuit affirms. Supreme Court grants certiorari. Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike
  • 15. 1515 Excerpts from Nike’s Covenant: (133 S.Ct. at 728): “‘[Nike] unconditionally and irrevocably covenants to refrain from making any claim(s) or demand(s) . . . against Already or any of its . . . related business entities . . . [including] distributors . . . and employees of such entities and all customers . . . on account of any possible cause of action based on or involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, or dilution, under state or federal law . . . relating to the NIKE Mark based on the appearance of any of Already’s current and/or previous footwear product designs, and any colorable imitations thereof, regardless of whether that footwear is produced . . . or otherwise used in commerce before or after the Effective Date of this Covenant.’” Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike
  • 16. 1616 • Voluntary Cessation Doctrine: • “[I]t was Nike’s burden to show that it ‘could not reasonably be expected’ to resume its enforcement efforts against Already. Burden characterized as “formidable.” Id. at 727 (citation omitted). • “[O]nce it is ‘absolutely clear’ that challenged conduct cannot ‘reasonably be expected to recur,’ the fact that some individuals may base decisions on ‘conjectural or hypothetical’ speculation does not give rise to the sort of ‘concrete’ and ‘actual’ injury necessary to establish Article III standing.” Id. at 730 (emphasis added; citations omitted). Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Supreme Court’s Analysis: Supreme Court’s Analysis
  • 17. 1717 • “We agree with the Court of Appeals that ‘it is hard to imagine a scenario that would potentially infringe [Nike’s trademark] and yet not fall under the Covenant.’” Id. at 728. • “Given the covenant’s broad language, and given that Already has asserted no concrete plans to engage in conduct not covered by the covenant, we can conclude the case is moot because the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. at 729. Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Supreme Court’s Analysis: Supreme Court’s Analysis
  • 18. 1818 • “Under the voluntary cessation doctrine, Nike bears the ‘formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” Id. at 733 (emphasis added; citation omitted). • “This brief, separate concurrence is written to underscore that covenants like the one Nike filed here ought not to be taken as an automatic means for the party who first charged a competitor with trademark infringement suddenly to abandon the suit without incurring the risk of an ensuing adverse adjudication.” Id. Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Justice Kennedy’s: Justice Kennedy’s Concurring OpinionConcurring Opinion
  • 19. 1919 • “The formidable burden to show the case is moot ought to require the trademark holder, at the outset, to make a substantial showing that the business of the competitor and its supply network will not be disrupted or weakened by satellite litigation over mootness or by any threat latent in the terms of the covenant itself.” Id. at 734. Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Justice Kennedy’s: Justice Kennedy’s Concurring OpinionConcurring Opinion • “It would be most unfair to allow the party who commences the suit to use its delivery of a covenant not to sue as an opportunity to force a competitor to expose its future business plans or to otherwise disadvantage the competitor and its business network, all in aid of deeming moot a suit the trademark holder itself chose to initiate.” Id.
  • 20. 2020 “Courts should proceed with caution before ruling that they can be used to terminate litigation. An insistence on the proper allocation of the formidable burden on the party asserting mootness is one way to ensure that covenants are not automatic mechanisms for trademark holders to use courts to intimidate competitors without, at the same time, assuming the risk that their trademark will be found invalid and unenforceable.” Id. at 734 (emphasis added). Already, LLC v. NikeAlready, LLC v. Nike: Justice Kennedy’s: Justice Kennedy’s Concurring OpinionConcurring Opinion
  • 21. 2121 Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., Ltd., No. 1:09:3308-WSD (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2013)
  • 22. 2222 Procedural History • Nov. 2009: Hitachi sues defendants for infringement of 4 patents related to tools. Count I of complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 7,521,892 (“ the ’892 patent”). Defendants (“Ds”) assert counterclaims, including a DJ of invalidity of the ’892 Patent. Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki • March 2012: Hitachi moves for dismissal of Count I under FRCP 41(a)(2) and 12(b)(1). Brief in support of motion recites covenant not to sue, apparently not issued previously. • May 2012: Ds file MSJ of invalidity of ’892 Patent.
  • 23. 2323 “[Hitachi] covenants not to sue [Ds] for infringement of [the ’892 patent] based on [Ds’] manufacture, importation, use, sale, and/or offer for sale, of products on or before March 13, 2012. [Hitachi] covenants not to sue [Ds] for infringement of the ‘892 patent based on [Ds’] future manufacture, importation, use, sale, and/or offer for sale, of any and all products being offered for sale by [Ds] on March 13, 2012 as well as any products that are the same as or substantially identical to a product being offered for sale by [Ds] on March 13, 2012. [Hitachi] covenants not to sue or otherwise seek to hold [Ds’] customers liable based upon the importation, distribution, use sale and offering for sale of the products that are subject to this covenant not [to] sue for the infringement of the ‘892 patent.” Hitachi Koki, slip op. at 10 (emphasis added). Hitachi’s Covenant Not to SueHitachi’s Covenant Not to Sue
  • 24. 2424 • FRCP 41(a)(2) Not Proper Rule for Voluntarily Dismissing Less than All of Case: “Courts uniformly have held that Rule 41(a) does not permit the dismissal of individual claims from a multi-claim action but only authorizes the dismissal of an entire action.” Hitachi Koki, slip op. at 7 (emphasis added). “[T]he proper way for a plaintiff to remove a single claim is to move to amend the complaint under Rule 15.” Id. at 8 & n.2. Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki: ND Ga’s Analysis: ND Ga’s Analysis • Covenant Formalities Still Important: “If the covenant was not formally executed and delivered to Defendants, the Court finds that a covenant was not issued in this case and thus there exists a case or controversy regarding validity of the ’892 patent. On this ground alone, [Hitachi]’s motion to dismiss would be required to be denied.” Id. at 10 n.3.
  • 25. 2525 • “[T]he covenant does not apply to specific potentially-infringing products that Defendants have introduced or will introduce after March 12, 2012.” Id. Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki: ND Ga’s Analysis: ND Ga’s Analysis • “[The covenant] does not cover any product manufactured, imported, used, sold, or offered for sale using the ‘892 patent technology that is not substantially similar to Defendants’ products as they existed on March 13, 2012.” Id. at 12. • An employee of one of the Ds testified that they have “concrete plans” to launch products in 2012 that use the ’892 patent technology but yet that are not “‘the same as or substantially identical to’ products existing as of March 13, 2012.” Id. at 11.
  • 26. 2626 Hitachi KokiHitachi Koki: ND Ga’s Analysis: ND Ga’s Analysis • Ds’ MSJ of Obviousness Denied for failure to present evidence regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 16-17. • RESULT: Court denies Hitachi’s motion. Issue of validity of the ’892 patent remains a “live” one such that court can consider Ds’ MSJ of invalidity (obviousness) of that patent. Id. at 13. Court left open the possibility that Hitachi could frame a more comprehensive covenant to “remove the threat of litigation against Defendants for infringement of the ’892 patent,” but that the covenant Hitachi presented in its motion was not such a covenant. Id. at 12 n.4.
  • 27. 2727 Take-Away Points 1. The content of any covenant not to sue will be closely scrutinized in future cases. Learn from Hitachi’s mistakes to draft broad, effective covenant for patent cases that will comply with Already v. Nike, and follow Nike’s example for TM cases. 2. Formalities are still important. Ensure that a covenant is signed and delivered to opponent prior to any dismissal motion. 3. Counsel client about risk of irrevocability of covenant, once made, and about its application to continuations in patent cases. 4. Get it right the first time. Hitachi could have had its ’892 patent invalidated but dodged a bullet on summary judgment.