Eastern District of Texas unveils e-discovery model to curb abuse *

USA - April 30 2012
Recognizing e-discovery in patent litigations carries “staggering time and production costs that have a debilitating effect on litigation,” in September of 2011, the U.S. ourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the Model Order Limiting E-Discovery in Patent Cases (the “model order”)—which places limits on the number of custodians and search terms that can be used for electronically stored information (ESI) discovery—and invited district courts to use the model order as a starting point for “streamlining e-discovery, particularly email production.”

---

No disqualification where disclosure of confidential information controlled by joint defense agreement *

USA - October 31 2011
Determining whether a law firm should be disqualified from representing plaintiff because one of its partners received a defendant’s confidential information under a joint defense agreement in a previous lawsuit and in a previous employment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court decision disqualifying the firm and upheld the waiver provision of the joint defense agreement, which waived future conflicts of interest.

---

Actual knowledge an element of § 271(b) inducement, but willful blindness will suffice *

USA - June 30 2011
The Supreme Court of the United States essentially affirmed the Federal Circuit in ruling (8-1) that induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement, but that one cannot escape liability through “willful blindness” that a copied product is patented.

Co-authors: Paul Devinsky.

---

Actual knowledge an element of §271(b) inducement, but willful blindness will suffice *

USA - June 2 2011
The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement, but that liability cannot be averted through willful blindness that a copied product is patented.

Co-authors: Paul Devinsky.

---

Limitation on the number of asserted claims does not violate due process rights *

USA - March 31 2011
Addressing for the first time the issue of whether restricting the number of claims that may be asserted violates a plaintiff’s due process rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld both a court order that limited a plaintiff to a specified number of asserted claims and refused to sever and stay any unselected claims.

---