Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(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
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousNorthern District of California's New Patent Rules
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
by Edward Reines
The Northern District Of California posted on Friday substantially revised patent rules that apply to all cases filed on or after March 1, 2008. ND Cal pioneered the first set of patent rules in 2001, as the vision of Judge Ronald M. Whyte, a leading jurist in the patent field. Since then, seven other Districts have followed and promulgated patent rules that are modeled to a greater or lesser extent on those original rules.
ND Cal's new 2008 patent rules feature two significant changes and a number of other updates. First, the new rules require the parties to identify together the claim construction disputes that are most significant to the outcome of the case, including an identification of which may be case dispositive. By default, under the new rules, the number of most significant terms ("MST") to be identified by the parties is ten, but that number can be scaled by the court to suit the needs of each particular case. The purpose of this new rule is to address the concern that parties identify too many terms, including many insignificant terms, for construction. By identifying MSTs, resources can be focused on the most important issues without a court outrightedly capping the number of terms to be construed.
Second, the new rules eliminate the concept of “preliminary” contentions in favor of a single round of contentions which can be modified only for good cause. Many had critiqued the old rules as allowing changes “as of right” in circumstances where such changes are not in fact warranted, while also creating undue barriers to their amendment when the circumstances did warrant modification. For guidance, the new rules set forth recurring circumstances where the good faith standard might be satisfied.
The efficacy of the new rules will, in the end, be judged by the test of time. In any event, the ND Cal judges deserve credit for staying at the forefront of case management innovation in the complex world of patent litigation. The District has published on its website a committee report that provides helpful background on how the new rules were developed and explains the intent behind the changes that have been adopted.
-
Ed Reines is a partner at the Weil Gotshal firm. He chaired the Northern District’s Local Rules Advisory Committee.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on February 03, 2008 (boomark / email).
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Dumb California Laws
Stupid Laws in the Sunshine State
VA Sets New Benefit Rules for Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses
Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses VA Sets New Benefit Rules
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.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
California Labor Laws
alleged violations of California labor laws such as overtime pay, discrimination and harassment.
Sony
to Pay $18.5 Million For Patent Infringment

Northern District of California Considering Changes to Its Local Patent Rules
Comments on the Northern District's Local Patent Rules
9th Circuit Modifies Local Patent Rules
Federal Circuit Affirms that Northern Districts Patent Local Rules Have Strong Bite
Speedy Patent Trials Check Out the Northern District of California

by Edward Reines






