Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Mass Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: Mass Law BlogHow to Attract Patent Litigation
By Lee.Gesmer
If you’re a federal district court, that is.
The answer? You need something not every federal district has. The Eastern and Southern Districts of Texas have them. The Northern District of California has them. The Districts of Pennsylvania (Western), Georgia (Northern) and Illinois (Northern) have them. In fact, so many U.S. District Courts have them that its getting difficult to keep up. Like so many things in life, at first its an advantage to have them, and eventually it becomes necessity.
And now the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has them.
What are they? Local procedural rules that apply only to patent cases. Local patent rules recognize that patent cases present legal, technical and discovery issues that call for specialized handling. In most jurisdictions these rules require early claim identification and invalidity defenses, attempt to schedule early claim construction (by the Court or by stipulation of the parties) and generally attempt to speed up the patent litigation process. After all, plaintiffs tend to seek out jurisdictions where they can get to trial as quickly as possible, since delay only increases expenses, while speed tends to lead to settlements.
Frankly, the Massachusetts local patent rules appear on the weak end of the spectrum - they focus entirely on the initial Local Rule Rule 16.1 statement to the court, and require the parties to propose a schedule for
disclosure of infringement claims and invalidity defenses, address issues associated with claim construction and tutorials for the Court (somewhat common in patent suits), and address various discovery-related issues. By contrast, the Patent Rules in the Eastern District of Texas (which attracts a great deal of patent litigation), sets strict requirements that far exceed the Massachusetts rules.
It’s unlikely that that the Massachusetts patent rules will turn Massachusetts into a hotbed of patent litigation, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Perhaps this will prove to be the first step toward rules that will turn Massachusetts into the “rocket docket” so admired by plaintiffs lawyers and feared by defendants.
An effort to collect links to the various local patent rules is on the New York Intellectual Property Law Association site here.
Full post as published by Mass Law Blog on November 26, 2008 (boomark / email).
Mesothelioma Law Suit
Asbestos Exposure
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
$189 Million Settlement Reached in Slab Litigation
$189 Million Settlement Reached in Slab Litigation
Breakthrough Settlement Reached In Chinese Drywall Litigation
Chinese Drywall Litigation Breakthrough Settlement Reached
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
Sony
to Pay $18.5 Million For Patent Infringment

Data do not support an explosive growth of patent litigation
Adjusted for inflation, median damages in patent litigation have held steady for 12 years
Study: Patent Litigation Protects Holders
TexasBarCLE Advanced Patent Litigation Course - Day 1
Patent litigation metrics and management techniques, but not costs
Patent litigation by the numbers








