E-discovery costs incurred by the prevailing party – easily running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars in complex commercial and IP litigations – may be compensable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).
I say ESI costs “may be compensable” advisedly. Not all of them are. Most importantly, the likelihood of recovering tens if not hundreds of
Latest from Flat Fee IP - Page 4
Comparing Suicide Pricing by Lawyers and Antitrust Claims for Below-Cost Pricing
Seemingly unrelated, the WSJ’s discussion of antitrust claims challenging below-cost pricing (Antitrust Busters with Gavels, 4/26/2013) and the Internet tabloid Above the Law’s discussion of increased use of “suicide pricing” by Biglaw (Buying In: Suicide Pricing, 4/16/2013), have at least one thing in common; in each instance, the consequence of the
eDiscovery Vendors Should Not Charge for Collecting and Preserving Data
Why? Our clients, as parties to litigation, are often required to collect and preserve all potentially relevant data. When this happens, they often believe that they have had to pay far more for these services than what was necessary under the circumstances, particularly in the earlier stages of litigation. As our clients put it, “I’m
Free Riding and Other Costs to Newegg of “Crushing” NPE Soverain
Kudos to online retailer Newegg and its Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng on the Federal Circuit decision handed down last week holding that three patents covering basic online checkout technology were invalid. [PDF] The decision reversed the judgment of the ED Texas trial court that the patents were not invalid and vacated the
Shorter Patent Office Delay Could Increase Chance of Stay
The U.S. Patent Office (“PTO”) has historically moved at a snail’s pace in conducting reexamination proceedings. The length of these reexamination proceedings have typically been the Achilles heel in getting a district court to issue a stay. If the District Court for the Central District of California is any guide, though, this may be changing
Apple Denied Permanent Injunction: Is “Right to Exclude” a Hollow Relic of the Past?
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh recently ruled that Apple did not meet its burden of proof to permanently enjoin Samsung from continuing to make and sell the twenty-six (26) products that a San Jose jury found infringed six Apple patents and Apple’s trade dress, to the tune of $1.05 billion. “[T]o the limited extent
Court Lets Vringo Bring in Entire Market Value Through Back Door
Vringo bought Lycos patents on search technology that keys ads to user search queries, then sued Google. At the recently completed trial, Vringo convinced a Virgina jury to award, see page 11 of its Nov. 6 verdict, a reasonable royalty of 3.5% of that portion of Google’s revenue purportedly connected to the stolen technology,
Court Recognizes BigLaw Rates Are Too High
This is something companies already know, but the Court has acknowledged it. The billing rates BigLaw charges for intellectual property litigation are too high.
Magistrate Judge Goldman recently found that Jones, Day’s rates in a discovery dispute to compel the production of documents were too high. In Etagz, Inc. v. Quicksilver, Inc., 10-00300-DOC, Central District
Why Samsung Losing Its Appeal Is Not Such A Bad Thing: Another Perspective
Since Apple’s $1.05 billion jury verdict and judgment against Samsung for patent and trade dress infringement, there has been much commentary on what it will mean for the future of technological development. Samsung says “we will appeal” and no doubt it will once Judge Koh resolves post-trial motions, motions for permanent injunctive relief and numerous
Where There’s a Will There’s a Way: Getting a Faster, Cheaper Decision of a Patent Case
Statistics show that an accused infringer usually wins on summary judgment, yet the great majority of accused infringers will settle rather than progress to the merits. The reason is that it often costs too much and takes too long to litigate on the merits. Changing to a non-hourly based fee gives trial counsel the heretofore