Dunlap Codding Senior Associate Julie Langdon was quoted in Law360 on April 4 in Jacob Fischler’s article, “What to Do After You’ve Screwed Up a Brief.”  Langdon had great advice: 

Follow the Local Rules:  “The first step is making sure you understand the rules of the court and how to go about fixing the brief.”  She added that judges are likely to be sympathetic to a genuine mistake and it wastes their time to consider improper filings. 

Keep Corrections Focused:  “You definitely should not be filing a corrected brief to change your argument in any way or to change the facts you’ve presented in any way….It should really, truly only be used to fix misrepresentations, inaccuracies.”

Dunlap Codding’s own Jordan Sigale and Julie Langdon co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association filed on April 20, 2016 in Sequenom v. Ariosa Diagnostics at the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief (prepared with Frank Angileri of Brooks Kushman PC) urges the high court to take the case for next term to refine the current framework for assessing the scope of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 in the context of Sequenom’s invalidated medical diagnostic patent claims. Read the petition here.

Joseph P. Titterington has authored an article discussing the potential end of forum shopped, published in Inside Counsel on April 13.  Joe wrote, “Few things gladden the heart of a patent litigator more than to enter into a contingency fee agreement with a patent owner whose patent has been infringed by a Fortune 500 company that does business throughout the United States. This is especially true if at least a single act of infringement has occurred within the geographic boundaries of the Eastern District of Texas.” 

The article discusses a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which may level the playing field.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA—April 5, 2016—Dunlap Codding is pleased to announce that Michael A. Schade has returned to the firm as Senior Counsel and Biotechnology Practice Group Leader.  His practice includes all areas of intellectual property law including patent, trademark, copyright, technology, and e-commerce and assists clients with intellectual property matters requiring litigation, licensing, technology counseling and complex transactions.  Nicholas D. Rouse, Dunlap Codding’s Managing Shareholder, said, “We are delighted that Michael has chosen to rejoin us.  His skills and the experience he brings from his in-house position at the University of Oklahoma will enhance our ability to serve clients.” 

Prior to his return, Schade had served for several years as the Senior Director of Intellectual Property and Staff Attorney at the University of Oklahoma.  In that role, he was responsible for the oversight and management of the University’s patent portfolio in order to maximize the economic impact of such assets to increase revenue for the University and the State of Oklahoma.  He also provided substantive intellectual property input to the State of Oklahoma’s federal legislators regarding the impact of federal patent legislation. 

He is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He particularly enjoys working with clients to complete the process of acquiring and/or commercializing intellectual property assets as well as portfolio management, licensing and transactional matters.

Schade’s scientific background has focused on all areas of biotechnology and life sciences (including molecular biology, cell biology, glycobiology, biochemistry, developmental biology, immunology, microbiology, virology, and genetics; pharmaceutical compositions; molecular diagnostics and techniques; medical devices and equipment) as well as chemistry and chemical engineering. He has significant experience in providing strategic and tactical intellectual property counsel to individual clients, universities, large pharmaceutical and manufacturing companies, and start-up biotechnology companies. 

He is currently an Adjunct Professor and Lecturer of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Schade received his J.D. degree and his B.S. in Biochemistry, magna cum laude, from that same institution. 

Dunlap Codding P.C., with offices in Austin, Chicago, Oklahoma City, and Washington, D.C., serves sophisticated international, national, and regional clients. Established in 1957 as Oklahoma’s original intellectual property firm, Dunlap Codding remains the state’s largest and most versatile IP boutique law firm.  

Dunlap Codding is a member of Primerus, an International Society of Law Firms.

On March 21, 2016, Ryan Davis quoted Dunlap Codding Director Jordan Sigale in “Justices May Weaken Design Patents in Apple-Samsung Case,” published in Law360.  The article focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to review the damages test for design patents, and Davis noted that the decision further prolonged the “bitter, $400 million smartphone war between Apple and Samsung.”  Attorneys interviewed for the article said the decision had the potential to diminish the power of design patents. 

Jordan Sigale was quoted as saying, “If the court does change the damages standard, it should take care not to undermine the value of design patents….Many design patent owners likely don’t need to recover the full profits of infringers, but they should still be able to get damages that are sufficient to deter infringement….I hope this isn’t a setback for design patent law….The value of design patents is still significant and I hope whatever happens in this case doesn’t negate that.” 

Davis observed, ” While the outcome of the case is difficult to predict, it is clear that the high court’s decision to delve into the closely watched issue will keep the years long battle between Apple and Samsung raging for months to come.”

Sigale concluded by saying, “They’re farther away from a settlement than they ever could have been….We almost have to hear from the court.  It would be a shame if they withdrew it.”

On Monday, March 14, 2016, Erin Coe wrote the first of a two-part article on “Three Reasons IP Specialists Have an Edge at Trial.”  Coe’s said, “When attorneys center on patent and other IP matters, and especially when they are skilled at both prosecuting and litigating patents, there are few surprises that catch them off guard at trial, according to lawyers.”  Dunlap Codding Director Jordan Sigale was quoted extensively. 

“I don’t just do patent litigation and prosecution; I also handle trademark and trade secret matters and the whole IP gamut….There is little that comes up at trial, and more importantly, in depositions, that I’m not prepared for.  Generalists can’t say that.  Having the breadth of knowledge in IP, and particularly in patent law and prosecution, is an immense advantage for a litigator. 

Coe wrote, “When a witness testifies about how an invention was developed or what happened with an application at the patent office, litigators with patent prosecution experience can delve deeper in their direct examinations and cross-examinations, according to Sigale.” 

Sigale said, “When you have experience with patent prosecution, you know how the process goes and what to expect….You can get to the bottom of an opposing witness’ testimony and refute it, or when it’s your client’s patent, support it.  That experience also helps you get the witness, judge or jury where they need to get.”

Jordan Sigale was quoted in “Stakeholders Agree with Fed. Cir.’s Discount of Severe Patent Exhaustion Consequences,” by Tony Dutra in the February 16 issue of Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal.   Dutra wrote, “The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries received a win with the Federal Circuit majority opinion downplaying the concerns of high-tech sector and retaining its current standards on the reuse and resale of patented products.  Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2016).”    

Dutra went on to say that the majority opinion expressed concern for the “likely disruption” in the drug industry should it change the standards.  Sigale agreed with the court’s view and said, “In the absence of this rule, drug companies would presumably have to minimize the disparity in drug prices between the U.S. and non-U.S. markets….Whether that would result in a benefit to U.S. citizens or a detriment to the rest of the world is the subject of a PhD dissertation.  More importantly for this court, basing any decision on that type of argument would seem more suited for Congress than the judiciary.” 

Dutra wrote, “Sigale…noted that the decision here—sticking with existing standards, absent evidence of serious problems with them—”sounds a lot” like the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Kimble v. Marvel Entm’t, LLC.  Sigale went on to observe that “non-exhaustion of U.S. patent rights based on a first foreign sale enjoys and long and un-varied history.  And notwithstanding that history of non-exhaustion, doomsday predictions have not materialized.”

Anandashankar Mazumdar’s January 29 article in Bloomberg BNA, “Latest Play in Cat-and-Mouse Game May Be Winner for Warner,” quotes Dunlap Codding Shareholder Emily E. Campbell. 

Mazumdar wrote, “On its face, a recent lawsuit by Warner Bros. and an Intel Corp. licensee of anti-copying technology seems to have a very strong case, according to observers who spoke with Bloomberg BNA. 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Digital Content Protection LLC recently brought claims of violations of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, 17 U.S.C. §1201, against a Chinese manufacturer of devices that help get around digital locks on what is being called Ultra-HD Blu-ray discs or 4K Blu-ray. Digital Content Protection, LLC v. LegendSky Tech Co. Ltd., No. 15-10169 ( S.D.N.Y. complaint filed December 31, 2015).” 

Campbell commented, “This case is certainly a cat-and-mouse chase played out in real life but, legally speaking, I think Warner Brothers and DCP have a really strong DMCA case…..Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, there are arguably some legitimate uses for the devices….This case reiterates how copyright law chases technology and the need for dynamic laws that adapt to advances in technology.”

Dunlap Codding attorney Julie L. Langdon will represent Women in Bio to help them celebrate their 15th anniversary by ringing the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange on January 28, 2016.  Julie serves as the National Membership Committee Vice Chair for the organization.

On December 17, 2015, GEN published “Potential Patenting Challenges for 3D Printed Organs,” authored by Julie L. Langdon.  Julie’s article offers a review of recent court decisions providing insight into the patent eligibility of 3D organs.   Julie concluded, “It appears that neither Section 33(a) of the AIA or Section 101 of the Patent Act will interfere with patent claims directed to 3D organs or bioprinting; however, as the laws continue to evolve, and 3D organs become more advanced and more like real organs, these are issues that should be re-visited.”