Litigation Issues

8/22/2019 Litigation Issues

1/24

Volume 21, No. 3

Spring 2010

Continued on page 21

This Issue: Indemnity Issues in IP Litigation

Committee Cochairs

Erick HowardShartsis Friese LLP

San Francisco, [email protected]

John P. Hutchins

Troutman Sanders LLPAtlanta, GA

[email protected]

Coke Morgan StewartKaye ScholerWashington, D.C.

[email protected]

Newsletter Editors

Editor in ChieSteve Gardner

Kilpatrick Stockton LLPWinston-Salem, [email protected]

Editor at Large

Brad LyerlaMarshall Gerstein & Borun LLPChicago, IL

[email protected]

Young Lawyer Oriented EditorElaine Y. Chow

K&L Gates LLPSan Francisco, [email protected]

Litigation Tips Editor

Douglas N. Masters

Loeb & LoebChicago, IL

[email protected]

Editor at LargeDavid L. MarcusComcast Cable Communications

Philadelphia, [email protected]

Associate Editor

Jason Hicks

Art DirectorTamara Nowak

Intellectual Property Litigation (ISSN 1936-7619) ispublished quarterly by the Committee on IntellectualProperty Litigation, Section o Litigation, AmericanBar Association, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago,IL 60654. The views expressed within do notnecessarily refect the views o the AmericanBar Association, the Section o Litigation, orthe Committee on Intellectual PropertyLitigation. 2010 American Bar Association

www.abanet.org/litigation/committees/intellectual

C

k

. T,

k w : A w -

B P

S b A

, , k,

. T b

B

A

A -

.1 A B

b b x

also to deend B against the inringement

Contractual Indemnity Obligationsfor Patent Infringement Claims

By Virginia DeMarch

, b

x , b

b b

w.2

T w

w

( b) w

be made early in the case.3 An indemnitor

w

,

w b b b

w de-

clined to provide a deense.4 For this reason

it is necessary or a potential indemnitor

Continued on page 19

Y

w w .

Lk w -

, w

w

-

b, k k

x . I

w

w;

w q j j

W W

Indemnifcation Clauses inSotware Licensing Agreements

By Ted Borris

w b;

b w -

w k

j ;

w

-

w.

In 90 percent o licensing opportunities,

your clients customer simply signs the sot-

ware licensing agreement without reading

Published by the Intellectual Property Litigation Committee of the ABA Section of Litigation 2010 American Bar Association, All Rights Reserved

1 Published in Intellectual Property Litigation, Volume 21, Num ber 3, Spring 2010 2010 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any port ion thereof may not becopied or disseminated in any form or by any m eans or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the Am erican Bar Association.


2/24

Message rom the Chairs

A w,

z

. B w

w - w wk

. T

w ,

w q

:

. P

w, ,

q w

w w

. M

w

,

.

T k

bj j b

. T

x,

w , ,

U C C. Kw-

w b

ww

w q

k w

w ,

w w

b . T

w b q

, . W

j w-w w!

O C

, k w . I

, w w

. P

, w

Sb,

w wk j -

b b j j-

-Nw,IP Remedies, w w

. Ck

wb www.abanet.org/litigation/

committees/intellectual -

kw w k

.

C Ek C. Hw, S

F LLP, w@w.; Ck

M Sw, K S LLP,

k.w@k.; J

H, T S LLP, j.@.

.

W k w k

b -

C .l

The BenefiTs of MeMBership

rac Yu pttaln Litigation NewsWebsite and Monthly Emails

n Litigation Magazine

n Section of Litigation Podcasts

n Meetings & CLE Calendar

n Cutting-Edge News and Analysis

n Newsletter Archive back to 2002

Go to www.abanet.org/litigation



3/24

The Buck Stops Where? Avenues toIndemnifcation in the Copyright Context

By Joseph Petersen and Ashford Tucker

O

, w w-

w b

b. N , w

, w

w

w b

. T, w

- I

b

Wb,

b w k .

G b

, , b w

, . Hw,

- b

w

w w

. I ,

q k b -

b w b

b

w b b -

. T w

w, - b

,

-I .

T C A

. Lk

C

x, b z w

: b

, b, b

.

T w.F, b k

w -

w .

S, b k

b

( b b

b). I b

k ww

b , b

b

b w b w

b .

Indemnity under an AgreementC -

x. I

, w, w k

b

kw -

b

. I

, -

, k

-

w.

F x, Olan Mills, Inc. v.

Linn Photo Co., E C

b

b

.1

I Olan Mills,

b

. T ,

- w

k . P

, q

x

b .

R

-

,

b

.2 T

-

b

.3 A,

b

b .

S, Mary Ellen Enterprises v.

Camex, Inc., E C j

b

k - w b -

wk

b

wk. T Mary Ellen

w b

E C Olan

Mills, w Mary Ellen

[] b-

[] wk [w]

k w [] .4

Olan Mills Mary Ellen w -w k j

k . I

w w

w b . N

w -

b w

wk k

b Mary Ellen -

, -b.

Hw, k ,

, in particular circumstances, b-

w k

b -

, bk b w -

, -

x wk. S

b bj

q w

,

b b k -

w

wk ( ).

Indemnity Without Agreements: StateStatutes as Substantive SourcesP k

x w b w

. C -

w

. C, -

-

q , ,



4/24

w, -w

, b.5

A w -

x

w, kw b

. C b b k

w b

x C

A or w. T , w b

q .

F, w b

C A

.6 S,

-

q

w j

w.7

A, k

b

w

b b. Hw,

b w w

w

b . I

, z w

b

C A. I

, w b

w - b w

.

F x, Dolori Fabrics, Inc. v.

The Limited, Inc., w

b -

.8 T

b

bw

. N,

Nw Yk U

C C

w . S-

, 2-312(3)

Nw Yk U C C,

w w -

w b

w k ,

.

S, Frank Betz Assocs. v.

Signature Homes, b b

, b

.9 W

j -w

, b

T -

w

b C A

j .

In short, courts routinely reject claims

or indemnifcation under the Copyright

Act or ederal or state common law(as distinct rom claims under written

indemnifcation agreements). However,

state statutes may present a viable

avenue to indemnifcation in circum-

stances where there is no written indem-

nifcation agreement.

ConclusionI

k

b x.

T b k

, q-

-

q .

A k w

b w

w

b

k . I w -

b

,

w

w w

b.l

Joseph Petersen is a partner with

Kilpatrick Stockton LLPs Trademark and

Copyright practice group in the frms

New York ofce. His practice ocuses on

copyright and trademark issues arising in

the digital media and technology indus-

tries. He may be reached at JPetersen@

kilpatrickstockton.com. Ashord Tucker

is an associate with Kilpatrick Stockton

LLPs Trademark and Copyright practice

group in the frms New York ofce. He

may be reached at AsTucker@kilpatrick-

stockton.com.

Endnotes1. 23 F.3 1345, 1348 (8 C. 1994).

2.Id.

3.Id.4. 68 F.3 1065, 1072 (8 C. 1995).

5. See, e.g., L B., I. . W, 294

F. S. 2 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (j

b Nw Yk

w b w b

b w

x b

w); but see F . L, 249 F.3

1281, 1286 (11 C. 2001) (

-w

x); 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David

Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[C]

[4][b] (Mw B, . .) (Tb b

b b b

. T, q w

b w z

w.).

6. See Fk Bz A. . S

H, 2009 WL 2151304, *3

([F]

C A.); Ek E G I. .

S, 2008 WL 461536, *2 (S.D.N.Y.

Fb. 15, 2008) ( [

b] x . . . C

A); Z T E, I. . F,254 F.R.D. 123, 126 (C.D. C. 2008)

([C]

b x

. . . C A.); P C

W, I. . B, I., 410 F. S.

2 439, 448 (W.D.N.C. 2006) ([N]

w . . .

C A.).

7. See Frank Betz Assocs., 2009 WL

2151304, *3 (

w

w);Elektra Entertainment Group, 2008

WL 461536, *2 ( [ b] x

w);Zero Tolerance Entertainment, 254

F.R.D. 126 (

b x . .

w); Pure Country Weavers,

410 F. S. 2 448 (

w C

w

[ ]).

8. 662 F. S. 1347, 1358 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

9. 2009 WL 2151304 (M.D. T. J 13,

2009).

A claimant seeking

indemnifcation in the

absence o a written

agreement aces

an uphill battle.



5/24

Can I Settle Now? Determining the Existenceo a Rightul Claim o Patent Inringement

By Christopher M. Arena and Chad A. Rutkowsk

P ww j -

b

. I . I

. I

z

bb w

. I

k

kw-w k x

-- . A w

w x

( , ) b,

. I w, w

w

b ,

. T -

b w

. I w b

, w.

P

w w

-

. W ,

bj

w

,

, U

C C (UCC). I

q q

,

b

x

, UCC 2-312(2) q

.1 A UCC

b w

bj w

, -

w b k

w . T

b b

w .

The Indemnitee Does Not Have toTake the Case to VerdictA b w , w-

, b

q

UCC q

b . UCC

2-312(2) w:

U w ,

k w

bdelivered free

of the rightful claim of any thirdperson by way of infringement

k b b

w . (

)

T, -

,

w b

. T

w j

. I

, , w b . B

w w ? I

,

x , x-

?

T w q b

. T F C

Cover v. Hydramatic Packing Co., Inc.,

j

w b

2-312(2) b b. T -

w w j b

w w

b

w x

w.2 T F

C, w,

x

w . E

, w b , b UCC -

, ,

b.

The Indemnitee Does Not HaveCarte Blanche to SettleCover, ,

b w -

w -

w. Cover , w,

q w

w -

. A , w :

A w -

, ,

b b b

-

. Ow,

w

kw w -

.

I -

, j

w

b

b

b -

b b

w b -

.3 I k b, w-

, b

w

w b . O

w, I

k , w

w wbw ,

, w b b

, .4 A -

kw, w,

bw j-

w

z w

b .

F



6/24

w j-

/

. T , b j-

w -

; b

w

. A

j

w - b b

.5

T b 2-312(2)

w-

. W b

b

bj , w

x w -

j w

b. I -

, b x bw . T, w

b

w b -

,

, w

b b. C z -

2-312(2) bw

b

w , UCC

2-312(1), w b

b w

b- w

bj w.6 W -

b

, b b

b

b b.7

Settlement Can Be Reached BeoreClaim ConstructionS w, x,

b ? T U

S D C N D-

C, Phoenix Solutions,

Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., w w w

b

. . . . 8 I S E-

, I., w b

S

S . S

w , E-

C ( b b I-

), w

b

. S 11

b -

. S b w b

w

S .

P w , S

- E/

I C-

UCC 2-312(2),C C C

2312(2). E/I -

j, , ,

w

S -

, w S

b b

. E/I

w q b

w

S .

T j w

w w

. A -

--

, ,

w -

q

. B

S k

x, w

S -

j. T, j

b

b ,

/

w b

x w .

ConclusionU, w

w b

q q j -

. T b w b b w -

, w w q

w -

b b

. T

b b -

, . I ,

b -

b b w b

b. I -

b

b , -

w

bj .

M, b-

x w

,

-

, b R,

-

k b

w

. T

b

, b -

b . I ,

b ,

w -

w

. F w w

bk w b w

b b . W

b w b

bj,

.l

Christopher M. Arena is a partner at

Woodcock Washburn LLP in Atlanta. He

may be reached at carena@woodcock.

com. Chad A. Rutkowski is an associ-

ate at Woodcock Washburn LLP in

Philadelphia. He may be reached at

[email protected].

Endnotes1. S C M. C. . M C.,

922 A.2 782, 795 (N.J. A. 2007).

2. C . H Pk C., I.,

83 F.3 1390, 1394 (F. C. 1996).

3. See 84 Lb C. . MRK T., L.,

145 F.S.2 675 (W.D. P. 2001).

4.Id.

5. See, e.g., P. Sw C., I. .

O E,, I., 84 C. R. 3 182 (C.

A. D S. C. 2008).6. See, e.g., Pacifc Sunwear, 84 C. R.

3 182; Sun Coast Merchandise, 922 A.2 782.

7. I b

, w,

w b,

2-312(2) b

b

w b

.

8. 637 F. S. 2 683, 697 (N.D. C.

2009).



7/24

The Basics o Indemnifcation

By G. Ross Allen

I -

k

-. A

,

k.

I

b b

b kw k

b . I -

,

b

w x

. T, b w

b k .

F, -

w

.

Implied Indemnifcation under the UCCA b

w w

x . W

, w

U C C (UCC)

w

. I

, k

w w

b. T,

UCC w .

U UCC 2-312, b -

w, w w b -

. E,

. I

,

2-312

. A

2-312 -

,

w,

b b k

.1 T , w,

b

w w -

.2

UCC section 2-607 requires the licensee

to inorm the licensor within a reasonable

time ater the licensee discovers or should

have discovered a breach o the agree-

ment. When inringement is alleged, the

licensee must notiy the licensor within a

reasonable time ater receiving notice o

the litigation. I the licensee ails to notiy

the licensor, the licensee risks being barred

rom any remedy or liability established

by the litigation. Thus, the licensee must

establish a notice procedure providing

timely notice o a claim or liability so that

the licensor can properly deend against

the claim or liability. The adequacy o

a licenses notice process is sometimes

contested when the licensor reuses to in-

demniy it. Thereore, the notice proceduremust provide notice within a reasonable

time to the licensor, or the licensee will

risk being barred rom asserting indemni-

fcation. Further, although a licensor has

the right to take control o litigation under

section 2-607, it is not required to do so. I

the licensor does not retain control, the li-

censee will need to proceed with litigation

over the inringement allegations, incur the

costs o its deense, and later seek recovery

rom the licensor or its expenses.

Drating Indemnity ClausesGenerallyI ,

-

UCC

q

z . E

b -

w

. T -

. Tw -

: (1) w

x -

, (2) w b.

T x

w w

, b

, . T x

w

w b b

. F x, w

k b w

b-

w

x . I x

,

w

.

L

w

b b .

T w

b U

S. P w

w w U S

j. P

b q

w-

-

j. W , -

w -

w b

w w b . F

, b b

U S J w w

When a licensing

agreement does not

contain an indemnityclause, state contract

laws will govern.



8/24

w

- U S.

P , w,

w b b

b j. A

w w k

x

.

W b

. P w

b

. A,

b w -

b b b

. T

b

.

Considerations or Each PartyS b

w -

. C k

w -

w .

Concerns for the Licensee

T q

. T

b

w

. T

-

. T b

b b

. S, w w

w, w

,

.

T w b b -

. T w b-

b -

b b w w

b

, w. A

b

b b

b

b .

F, w w -

w w

b . F ,

b-

b

. T w

w w

b ,

x, ,

.

Concerns for the Licensor

T w b z

k w -

. T, w w

. T

w -

, k b b

k k

. T

q

b bb b.

T w w

w b

w b b w

. T w

x

w w -

b b w

b -

b b. T

b

b.

F,

w w

.

T

. I

w , b

k -

w

. T w

. I , w w x

w b . T

x

w

x w b

b . R,

w -

x w b

. S,

, w w

-

. B w w z b,

w w

.

ConclusionI

. W

w

j, -

w w x

x -

b . P

-

, x

. I ,

q . B

b

q -

k b. A

, b w

.l

G. Ross Allen is an associate at

Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP

in Palo Alto, Caliornia, specializing in

intellectual property litigation. He may be

reached at [email protected].

Endnotes1. P. Sw C. . O E., I.,

84 C. R. 3 182, 194 (C. C. A. 2008).

2. See Px S, I. . S E.

I., 637 F. S. 2 683 (N.D. C. 2009).

The procedure and

time requirements

should be clearly

stated to preventambiguities about

each partys

obligations.



9/24

Drating and Negotiating Deense andIndemnifcation Provisions

By Robert E. Rudnick and Andrew M. Grodin

S b -

b -

, b

b k

w

(IP)

. W

-

k

,

k IP

. P

IP

. Hw,

-

k b b w-

- .

T -

b w

,

w b w

w .

I ,

IP -

q b

, ,

w. A,

,

-

w. Lkw,

b b

w.

IP -

IP

, k, ,

, w

-

w. Hw,

b

w. T

x

w IP . W

b

-

b

b

,

w

k b q

IP -

.

W b

bb k b

x b, k b -

z. T

b b IP

b

b . T w

b

b b w

b -

x b w

-

.

Deense and IndemnifcationGeneral Terms and TriggersA w- IP -

, , b

b,

b. F x,

b IP

:

S w , ,

B

- , , -

(C) B

x C b

P,

A,

U S

.

T

b

b

b .

O , x

b-

. I

, w

bw.

A b x, -

b. A w-

w b

b ,

-

, .

T

b

, w, .

T , b , w

-

. S

b

w b, w

.

I , b -

z w x-

w -

. B q

Practitioners oten

overlook IP deense

and indemnifcation

clauses until itis too late.



10/24

b-

, ..,

, b

b -

, w x

. I

IP -

b b

, , . Hw,

w b -

k

w IP

b b

, k -

w .

Deense and IndemnifcationSeparate but Related Obligations

Historically, or certain industry segments,protection aorded buyers o goods rom

third-party patent inringement was in the

orm o IP indemnifcation only. In the

last decade, sales and license agreements

have extended the sellers obligations to

include both deense andindemnifca-tion obligations. O late, it is not unusual

or such agreements to create obliga-

tions or the seller to deend, indemniy,

and hold the buyer harmless. Each o

these separate, but related, obligations

increases the sellers exposure to liability.

Although industry custom may dictate

this arrangement, deciding whether to tie

ones deense obligation to the obligation

to indemniy should be critically evalu-

ated. The two obligations are completely

separate, yet they are oten combined.

Indemnifcation does not merely create a

pay the way obligation or the seller. In

assuming a level o risk, the seller must

be able to determine and contract or the

amount o involvement it wishes to under-

take in a claim or IP inringement made

against a buyer.

A w -

b b

bk , ,

b w

w:

S w , x,

- , , -

B (C)

x C b

P,

A,

U S

. S w

B j,

b

C -

S.

T k

b

b -

w

b w ; b

; b

q b

.

Important Deense andIndemnifcation ExceptionsS x x

b-

. Ex b

x b

x

b b

, b b w b

,

b b

- . I

w x,

b

b

b. A b

, x,

-

, j,

b

b b

b -

b w

b . T

x -

x b w

w b.

Hold Harmless and Limitation oLiability Provisions

B b

b IP -

, w

b ,

b x,

q . H

b

b ; w,

b b

b . T

b IP

P b b. S w kw w w b

b w b

k

w b . T k, b x IP -

b. A b x

S b S- -

b w b w w w

b S.

Bk b x b b

w b , .., w

w -

w . A, x

b x b

. F b x

w ,

- , b - , b b z

w .

Combination Exclusions

10 Published in Intellectual Property Litigation, Volume 21, Num ber 3, Spring 2010 2010 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any por tion thereof may not becopied or disseminated in any form or by any m eans or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the Am erican Bar Association.


11/24

b

w b b -

,

. T

k, IP

w- -

b x ,

q, , b x.

I

b w

IP

, x:

N O R R

IT

S b

B x

w

.

Lkw, k

b

w b

.

I x

, b b

b

b. I

q -

- w , x,

b b b

w. I ,

b -

.

Geographic Limitations on Deenseand Indemnity ObligationsA IP

.

F x,

b U S

U S, IP

b b U S

, .., U.S.

U.S. . I b

U K,

-

U K -

U.K. .

G

b

b -

b .

F x,

b

U S, ,

.

A U.S.

w j

,

w b b q

x

x

w. G

w w

w

w -

b .

Remedial Measures: NoninringingSubstitutes or Modifed GoodsT

IP ,

x w

b -

b.F x, w

w b:

S, w x

: (1) B

P; (2)

P w -

; (3)

B - -

b F P b

(X) , w

B w S

P .

S , w b

x , kw -

b. T

w b

b b- w b

bj

b b.

Coordinating Deenseand Indemnifcation withRepresentations and WarrantiesNw IP

b b

b w-

w .

F x, U C-

C (UCC)

b w

,

w -

.1

S w

IP -

. F,

b

x

UCC w. Hw, ,

UCC w-

, --

IP

w

x

To mitigate or terminate the impact o IP

inringement claims, a seller should consider

provisions that explicitly allow the seller to

substitute a modifed noninringing product

or service that provides the necessary

unctionality or the buyer.



12/24

w IP .2 I

, b k -

b

. A, -

b

IP

w b w

bk

w w

.F ,

w IP -

w- IP

. D ,

x -

,

w IP

w : (1) T

IP -

x b IP

, w

; (2)

, b

-

k

w, x -

b .

F, x b -

w

b ,

w

w x

b

w

.T w-

-

b

k ;

,

k

. T b b -

w

w -

, w k kw

b w.l

Robert E. Rudnick is a director at

Gibbons P.C. in Newark, New Jersey. He

may be reached at rrudnick@gibbonslaw.

com. Andrew M. Grodin is an associate at

Gibbons P.C. in Newark, New Jersey. He may

be reached at [email protected].

Endnotes1. S 2-312 (2) UCC :

U w ,

k

w b

b

w k b b

w .

S 2-312 (3) UCC : A

w b

b b

b

kw ,

,

bj

k.

2. I b b

w b

w bw

b , b w

b , b

. A

IP

k

x b

, b

bw b .

The BenefiTs of MeMBership

Yu Bg t LucW Bg t CLe

We all wish we had more time. Maximize your time with

the ABA Section of Litigation Teleconference Series. Join us on

the second Tuesday of each month to hear nationally known

litigators discuss hot topics that you need to know about.

Earn 1 hour of CLE credit while you listen and lunch.

Litigation Series CLE Teleconferences

www.abanet.org/litigation/programs



13/24

Sharing the Risk: Patent Inringement LiabilityIndemnifcation and Insurance

By Kim Cauthorn, Tom Britven, and Tamara Turek

I

,

.1 O,

, , -

b . T

k ,

k

/ q .

M ,

, w, -

b q

b .Hw, q

b . I-

-

b w b;

b x (

); b

x; w

w

b .

A

w

q

. V-

w

b w -

b .2 O

w

q w

-

b .

T w b

- -

b k .

The RisksT b

3 b-

.

I ,

b ,

, -

x, . A

.4 N ,

w w -

b

.

Hw, b

b

b -

b. G

,

,

w

w. T

k -

w b b

.5 I -

b ,

b

b. F,

b

.

E b

w

,

w -

b .

M,

k

b

b w w

b .

S w

b

. W -

,

A, b

b

.

M k

. F b bx

, -, -

, w

k x

q . Lkw, w

w

q

w

intellectual property covering the supplied

The trend in patent litigation has been forpatent holders to assert their patent rights

against the entity selling the allegedly

infringing product or the entity combining

components into a single product.



14/24

, k

. A,

b

-

, w b

.

F k,

q

. Ex

b , wk ,

. A

k b

, w q

-

b ,

, -

. Hw,

x b,

, , .

Patent Inringement LiabilityInsuranceProcess

Lb w

q w

w :

W b -1.

k ?

I , w w 2.

?

Hw w k 3.

?

Uw

b k

b

b q.

T w

w q

x

bw . W

w

, w

q b

w b

x

w (- w )

w .

I

, -

q w

:

R b

R

b

A x w

w b

T

T k -

The applicants patent dispute history

I

q w ,

, k

b b-

w ,

w w:

I b

A w b

A w

w b w

T w

Pricing

G x w-

, ,

- b

, b

x. T w

w z k b

, w

b w b -

, . T,

b w

b .

The premium or such insurance is

usually calculated on a rate-on-line basis.

For patent inringement liability policies,

premium rate-on-line typically alls in

the 1 percent to 10 percent range. As an

example, a 1 percent rate-on-line or a

limit o indemnity o $1 million would

be a $10,000 premium. Most specialty

line patent policies include a sel-insured

retention and a co-insurance. The sel-

insured retention works like a deductible

but does not count against the policylimit. The co-insurance counts against

the policy limit and can be anywhere

rom 5 percent to 20 percent. This is the

portion o the legal expenses or damage

award that must be paid by the insured.

In addition to other actors, the premium

is priced against the sel-insured reten-

tion and the co-insurance percentage. I

the applicant is willing to retain more

risk (a higher sel-insured retention), the

premium typically decreases. Likewise, i

The U.S. Market or PatentInringement Liability Insurance

I k b

1980. T L L k b w

k -U.S. 1980 b

U.S. k 1998. I P I S C. (IPISC),

b L, Kk, b

U S 1980. S -

, , -

b k x w b

k k .

A b b -

U.S. . A J 2010, IPISC w U.S.

- b . A W/Dw

$1 -

b k T//404 . L, SAMIAN

Uw L, U.S. k 2010

b U.S.-b . TkRk, wU.S.-b w ,

, , , , wk -

k . P b

b k , b .



15/24

the insurer carries more risk, the premium

typically increases.

Form, Conditions, Exclusions, and Claims

I -

k b

b . T w

/ .6 Hw,

-

x w

. F x, $4

$4

,

. M,

b ,

b , w

. T

b b k

b k.

S w -

b -

b

.

Ob

w

-

w

b

q. T w q

b

-

. I -

w

b ,

b

b

.

P .

F x, b

q

b

. T

b x w . F x,

w ,

w

b

- ,

w . P

b

b w

b ,

w b -

w

. S

q w

b b b

.

Patent insurance policies also typically

x w -

.

However, some policies cover legal deensex .

P q b-

, , .

S q -

b

bb

b w

. M w

b q . I

w

b -

b, b k

.

How to Use Patent Insurance to

Address the RisksI q

bk -

b ,

w

. I , b

- .

A ,

. T b

w -

q

w

b

b .

A

b

. V

- b

-, q -

w w

b. I

w q b

-

-

, k

w

. A-

k b

b

b.

T,

b b

b x -

.

A

w -

, -

b,

. S k

b bx , -

,

Obtaining the appropriate scope o coverage

is particularly important when customers

are added as additional insured parties or

when a contractual patent inringement

liability endorsement is requested.



16/24

x.

A -

w

b x x w,

x,

b. Hw,

/

b

b x x

b . T -

q. T

b w

w

q , b

.

A

w

,

/ -

, ,

x b

-

b . S

, -

w ,

b

b . Hw,

-

,

b

$1 .

ConclusionT

w -. T k w b

.

T w

. P , -

b w, b

b k-

. Hw, b

b

. l

Kim Cauthorn is a director at Du &

Phelps. She may be reached at kwimberly

[email protected]. Tom

Britven is a managing director at Du

& Phelps. He may be reached at thomas

[email protected]. Tamara

Turek is a vice president at Du &

Phelps. She may be reached at tamara

[email protected]. All reside in

Houston, Texas.

Endnotes1. F ,

w b .

2. See, e.g., 4 L. P . M C.,

C N. 2009-1504 (F. C. D. 22, 2009);L T., I. . Gw, I., 580 F.3 1301

(F C. 2009); C U. . Hw Pk

C., 609 F. S. 2 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).

3. A b

,

w b

S C Q C

. LG E. W b Q

b ,

k w b, ..,

. See Q C .

LG E., 128 S. C. 2109 (2008).

4. C w b

w b b

. See, e.g., 4 L. P, N.

2009-1504 ($290 w

j ); L T,

580 F.3 1301 ($357 w

); C U, 609 F. S. 2 279

( j

w b

w

k ).

5. A x b wbM,

I. 2004 F 10-K A R: O

M 30, 2004, w

w

, w w

, , b

. T

b

U.S. . T k

wbM

. U , w

$2.25 A 2004

, w b

w ,

w

wbM . wbM, I.,

SEC F 10-K A R

M. 31, 2004, 25.

6. P b

- ; , w

. I b b

b

- .

ababooks.org . . . the source you trust for practical legal information.

Visit the ABA Web Storeatwww.ababooks.orgFeatures of theStore Include

www.ababooks.org



17/24

Res Judicata: Patent Indemnitee Beware!

By Kenneth L. Dorsney

I

. P

x, , . I

k

.

Lk , ,

x

q w

x . I

w . A

,

j,

.

A

j.

Indemnifcation in PatentInringementP k

wb

-

. O -

b

, b -

, , -

.

Notice and the Party IndemnitorG, b

,

q

.1 I -

q , w, -

x

, , ,

.

Res Judicata and the PreclusiveNature o Consent JudgmentsA claim or indemnifcation is generally

not timely until a fnal judgment is reached

on the underlying claim giving rise to the

b . Hw,

assuming entry o the indemnitor in an

action or patent inringement, either as a

named deendant, as a requirement o the

contract, or by agreement o the parties,the indemnitees claim might be timely

earlier2 and, i not litigated in the action,

might be barred by res judicata.

R j3

w,

b, .4 T

x w,

j , , b

, -

j.5 T

(1)

w b w

j; (2) w

; (3)

w

b .6

A , j w j

j

.7 I

j-

b ,

b ,

j b

b .8 U -

w

j

,

j.9

The Case o Peregrine FinancialA x b

w -

P F.10 P F

G, bk ,

TM L.L.C.,

w,

P

TM w.

T

P

,

.I J 2005, T T,

I.,

P TM -

w TM

P T T-

. A

P

TM

TM w -

P

, P

TM -

.

O J 30, 2006, TM

w

T T wb TM-

. P w

. I

, P -

b TM

x. T , TM

b [P]

.T b .

O M 15, 2006, P

w w

T T. TM w

.

T , w, TM

w .

A w ,

TM

x

T T x

A patent indemnitee

should tread lightly in

litigation to prevent

the preclusive natureo a fnal judgment.



18/24

P. P

.

I j w

,

j, w

M 23, 2006. T -

j

[] b w

.

S , M 23, 2006,P

TM -

k

P x

$416,081.22.

TM . P-

-

x.

TM j

-

j b

j.

Fw ,

w TM

j. P

, w w ,

. O ,

b-

w

j j.

T j w

w w

.

P b

b -

TM

TM b

P, w

bw

patent litigation and the action to recover

. P

b

-

, w q b

.

F, P k

q TM

b b b

w . I , T-

M

j wb

b w

.

T w

b P . I,

P -

,

, , ,

b -

; ,

x bw w . C-

q, b P

b

,

w j TM

j.

ConclusionA

x -

w

j w

w . A ,

P F w

b z x

b

b

j.l

Kenneth (Ken) L. Dorsney is a pat-

ent attorney and o counsel with the law

frm o Elliott Greenlea in Wilmington,

Delaware. He can be reached at [email protected].

Endnotes1. C R E. . N, 399 S. 2

77, 78 (F. 5 DCA 1981).

2. See W . C C, 120 F.3

681, 685 (7 C. 1997) (

b

b j

).

3. [A] , w

j . D . E.S.

O, I., 342 F.3 1320, 1327 (F.

C. 2003) (Dk, J., ) ( M

T. L, LLC . U Dk C., 334

F.3 1366, 1369 (F. C. 2003); but see id.

(F C w j

j

.) (

F . H M. C., 947 F.2 469 (F.

C. 1991)).

4. T

j

j. Az

j b w

:

. I

w ; w

b . C .

D E, 398 F.3 1369, 1375 .8 (F

C. 2005) ( M . W C S.

D. B. E., 465 U.S. 75, 77 .1 (1984)).

5.Id. 1375 (q A . MC,

449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)).

6.Id. (

P . U.S. P S., 66 M.S.P.R

332, 337 (1995)).

7. E M C. . H.H. Rb C.

870 F.2 1574, 1576 (F. C. 1989) (T C w).

8. See id. ( I, I. .

F W, 653 F.2 93, 9697 (3 C.), cert.

denied, 454 U.S. 1092 (1981)).

9. [P] x

j

w w b

b bw .Epic, 870

F.2 1576 ( ).

10. P F. G, I. .

TM, L.L.C., 909 N.E. 2 837 (I.

A. 2009).

Because Peregrine could have brought its

claim or indemnifcation in the patent

litigation, the trial court did not err when it

granted summary judgment on TradeMavens

afrmative deense o res judicata.



19/24

Contractual Indemnity

ObligationsContinued from page 1

x

b

.I -

q

. F, b

w

b.

T -

x -

; w b ;

b b

k, , , ,

w b -

; q.5T -- z

,

b q -

w

x w .

A , w w ,

/

b b

w w

b. O-

w k

w

w

bj b

k b

--.

S, w

kw,

w

. T

-- b

. T

b w

. I , -

w

b

, b ,

--.6 S -

b b

b

w , b

w b -

z b .

S , w,

b b

w .

E -

/ x

x

b x

b

, b w

b b-

b.

T, b b

.., A w

B w b A, w C

w A

b C A

w, q-

x

bw . I b

, F C w b-

circular b. IRFR

Industries, Inc. v. Rex-Hide Industries,

Inc.,7 , RFR, C

S, I.,

bb w . A

, RFR

C -

b -

C

b

RFR k -

. RFR Rx-H, C

. Rx-H -

C -

RFR , C

- RFR

. T F C

RFR C

C Rx-H

x-

RFR -

Rx-H.8 T

q

, w

.

F, w

,

b b

x

bw

. P -

. F x, , -

w

, w,

w b,

w,

b . T ,

q , w b

b

w . S

Oten the supplier will need to undertake its

own independent inringement analysis to

determine whether the product or service that

is the subject o indemnity obligation is likely

to be accused o inringing the patent-in-suit.



20/24

w -

, w

,

w -

.

W ,

b x q-

b -

q

, .., w b b b

w

,

w

w b. A x

R (S) J,

W, b

bw -

, k

,

j b

.9 S

, w,

,

/

b. I,

b

w .10 E

b

j

x ,

b-

, b.11 A w q

/

b -

b.12 B

b , x

b .

E w /

/

, b

w

w w. F x,

w

b

. U

-

, w

b b ( )

.

F, w

-

,

k b -

. T b w, w

w objectively

reckless, ..,

bj k-

-

.13 A

q

kw , kw -

,

specifc intent

.14 I-

w

w

b b .15

D , w,

b b,

, -

b ,

w k b q

w, bj

w w

b . l

Virginia DeMarchi is a partner at

Fenwick & West LLP, in Mountain View,

Caliornia. She may be reached at

[email protected].

Endnotes1. W

x

bw A B, w b b

w. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code

2778(6) (j

b

b

).

2. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code 2778(3), (4)

(A . . . b

. . .;

T b, q

,

b

b b . . . .).3. See Lkw I B.V. . V B C.,

273 F.3 741, 746 (7 C. 2001) (T

b kw w

b b

, b q.).

4. See VKk . G C. C., 195 W.

V. 714, 72122, 466 S.E.2 782, 78990 (W. V

1995) (

,

w w b

b

).

5. See Fed. R. Civ. P., A. XII, F 18.

6. See, e.g., M C. . CSIRO, 2007U.S. D. LEXIS 91550 *10 (E.D. Tx. D.

13, 2007) (CSIRO M

k

.).

7. 222 F. Ax 973 (F. C. 2007)

(b).

8.Id. 97576.

9. Restatement (Second) of Judgments

57, . , 83 (1980).

10. See, e.g., A. M I. C. . T

C., 544 F. S. 669, 686 (W.D. W. 1982),

ad718 F.2 842 (7 C. 1983); U.S. F.

G. C. . L A. R C., 585 F.2 932,

939 (8 C. 1978).

11. See, e.g., MPCS W, I. .

T. S., I., 2009 U.S. D. LEXIS

97884 (D. M. O. 20, 2009).

12. See C Cb . A E. S

& A., 90 O A. 3 608, 616, 630 N.E.2

59, 6465 (1993).

13.In re S T, LLC, 497 F.3

1360, 1374 (F. C. 2007).

14. DSU M. C. . JMS C., 471 F.3

1293, 13045 (F. C. 2006) ( b

).

15. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code 1668 (A

w bj,

, x b

w , w j

, w, w

w ,

w.). I x ,

b

b

w . See, e.g.,

Mz I., I. . P. N I. C., 76 C. A

4 856 (1999) (); C Mk

G, I., 517 F. S. 2 1089 (D. M. 2007)

(w).

To establish willul

inringement, a patent

holder must show

that the accused

inringer was

objectively reckless.



21/24

Indemnifcation Clauses

in Sotware LicensingContinued from page 1

. I

w, b w

b w ww w w

b w w

w .

Hw, 10

Xbx 360 , w

w C D. T 10

w

w -

; w /

-

k - j.Y b .

T ,

w ,

w A UCLA

L M M-

bk. D

bj

, ,

, k

- 12

. Y jb, , b

process to conclusion as quickly and smoothly

b, b

z w

w

b .

Sw -

b b

q bj , -

b. Hw,

bb

.

T x

-

w w -

b. T

w x

, w -

b

b .

Issue 1: Scope CreepM w -

w x

b . R,

k -

w -

k . V -

, , ,

w. I ,

- w ,

w b -

w b-

-- w

.

Sw

b , -

,

w -

. Hw, w

- -

. T

. F, w w -

w

-

. S,

-

, b x.

T, w

w -

,

w -

. F, - ,

, w-kw ,

,

- -

.

N,

, -

. T b

w w

x - , , -

w

, w,

w b - b

, w -

b-

. N bb

, b

; , b -

.

T ,

Sw

Sw -

w

, b -

, b w.

O , - w j

. G

w

b your

client - , w

-

b ?

F, -

b; ,

b

w

. F,

w -

, bj

b -

w . S,

k b

w

, b

. T, -

wk w

- -

, k b

. F,

b .

A b w

bj , , -

b -

. A ,

bw wk

w , w

k w,

-

w -

. Hw,

b b b

, w-

k,

w k

k w :

Rw 1.

w - -

w b b -

, b b b-

.



22/24

Rw -2.

w

- .

I - -3.

b

b, k -

- -

w b

Other IssuesA w w w

. H j

b.

Control of the Litigation

A w b , w

w, b . R,

. A , : [V] b

. G

k b ,

b w k .

Reasonable Assistance from the Customer

I q w b -

; , w

. T q, , w

w

. T w q. Hw, b b ,

b k .

Indemnity Conditions

F , w w

b .

T b , -

w, b . S

w:

T b

w w

.

T b

w w z ( w

) z ( x, w -

bk , w

b), z .

B . F

x, , q q

x w w

z b . N,

w x.

q .

I - -4.

,

-

,

k, -

b

j w

w k-b -

,

w .

B k , w

b w q

, w -

b k. Hw, -

q: W

w - ,

b -

q? W

11

? T w

.

Issue 2: Remedies or InringementA jb

b

w,

. T b , , q

x ,

bk , -

. F

,

b

b w

.

B -

b w ,

w -

-

w . M

w

w ,

:

T -

w

, w

.

T w

w w w

.T -

w

, b

j w.

T b b

w . I

w xb j

, -

, b q



23/24

,

. O

q

k b -

b

,

x b b

.

A , - w

, w:

A

x 10 ,

. I -

b ,

x

, b w b

w b q

100 b

.

Aw b

b w -

, ,

w ,

w .

I

w -

, , -

w b

.

I b

w

b

xb

b .

I b

, , -

b w

b

j k b

w,

. Hw,

b

. D w

w

x b x.

Limitations on Infringement Liability

A persistently negotiated issue in sotware

licensing agreements is the limitation

on liability. One challenge, however, is

the connection between limitations on

liability clauses and inringement indem-

nity clauses.

M w , w

, z

b -

. I w

b , x,

w , w

, ,

x b. T

w b

w

z, b

w

b w,

w , w ,

w , j z-

bw

w.

A , w

w b

x

11. T w , w

k ,

b -

b

(.., b b

).

F , b

w

,

w:

Ex

b -

, 200 300 ,

.

I

b, b , ,

$500,000 $1,000,000,

b

,

w, .

W -

, -

q

, ,

k, w

.

I w ,

w, w -

w

b .

T b, b

,

,

b x . I,

, w -

, b :

E k -

w

b

.

H

or potential risks to determine whether

b w

k. F x,

, -

? D

? D w w

?

I ,

k b ,

b k,

k

-

b b

.

ConclusionA w

w b -

w

-

. G

k,

, w

w . U,

b

, -

w b,

w, w j

x w

-

.l

Ted Borris is the assistant general

counsel o Quadramed Corporation in

Reston, Virginia. He may be reached at

[email protected].



24/24

Contractual Indemnity Obligations or Patent Inringement ClaimsBy Virginia DeMarchi. ............................................................................................ 1

Indemnifcation Clauses in Sotware Licensing Agreements

By Ted Borris ........................................................................................................ 1

The Buck Stops Where? Avenues to Indemnifcation in the CopyrightContextBy Joseph Petersen and Ashford Tucker ............................................................. 3

Can I Settle Now? Determining the Existence o a Rightul Claim oPatent InringementBy Christopher M. Arena and Chad A. Rutkowski ................................................. 5

The Basics o IndemnifcationBy G. Ross Allen .................................................................................................. 7

Drating and Negotiating Deense and Indemnifcation ProvisionsBy Robert E. Rudnick and Andrew M. Grodin ...................................................... 9

Sharing the Risk: Patent Inringement Liability Indemnifcation andInsuranceBy Kim Cauthorn, Tom Britven, and Tamara Turek .............................................13

Res Judicata: Patent Indemnitee Beware!By Kenneth L. Dorsney ...................................................................................... 17

American Bar Association

321 N. Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60654-7598

NoNprofit

orgaNizatioN

U.S. poStage

PAIDamericaN Bar

aSSociatioN

InThisIssue...

Documents

Litigation Issues