View sample report (below) or select your case.




TECHSHELL Inc. v. IBOX Inc.

11/09/15 | FLND-3-2015-CV-00510 | M. Casey Rodgers & Charles J. Kahn, Jr. | Pacer

7,643,274 | 7,907,400 | 8,638,555 | 8,289,703

Plaintiff counsel: Stephen Robert Risley




Executive Summary


Fish & Richardson

Client selected

Kenyon & Kenyon

Client selected

Merchant & Gould

Patent Engine Suggestion

Robins Kaplan

Patent Engine Suggestion

Overall Score

(0-100)


87

67

85

95

Team

Carol R. Timons | bio

Sam K. Renolds | bio

Tim Franklin | bio

Sara H. Ruter | bio

Zhenya G. Simon | bio

Lyall C. Laird | bio

O. Kian Ansel | bio

Karena T. Aleta | bio

Tristram C. Désiré | bio

Seung J. Lennox | bio

Jewel H. Grigori | bio

Kayleigh Edweena | bio

Sharona L. Lynsey | bio

Jude G. Isadore | bio

Dennis E. Anselme | bio

Maddie C. Griselda | bio

Summary

This is a sample report with sample data.

Your report will include additional information. Each issue will include the firm's description. See, e.g., the “Technical Experience” section.

As your partner on patent matters, we look forward to helping you again. We are currently helping other clients defend against this same portfolio. Leverage our knowledge and we can efficiently resolve this case as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider our proposal. We have been working with the technology in this case for years. We want to use our technical skills to help you resolve this case.

We know the industry, district, and judge. Our insider’s perspective improves case management. This is particularly true because of our appearances before J. Rodgers and J. Kahn in numerous patent cases.






Experience of the Law Firm


Score

Experience

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

Yes

Technical

(relevancy, up to 100%)

76%

52%

88%

92%

-

Firm's description of their technical skills and knowledge of the industry.

We have both litigated and prosecuted patents related to laptop accessories, and other protective gear. For example we drafted US20070048470. Thus, we have already conducted extensive prior art searching in this field and we can use that knowledge to improve the invalidity positions in this case as well.

While other firms may have general knowledge about this field, we know the patents-in-suit. We are helping Acme Accessories in a co-pending case against TechShell. We can leverage the prior invalidity contentions and non-infringement contention research to help quickly (and efficiently) prepare a solid substantive defense in this case.

One of the original laptop accessory companies – Fashion Elec. – has been our client since 1983. Put simply, one know knows this industry as we do. We already know the key innovators (and TechShell is not one of them), experts, and hard to find sources of prior art in this area. We simply have more depth about this subject than anyone does.

After market laptop components have been a significant source of litigation since the late 90s. Sharona, in particular, has worked on dozens of similar cases. We work with you to construct solid non-infringement arguments, or at worst, an inexpensive re-design of the product to eliminate TechShell’s ability to even request a large jury verdict.

Yes

District

(no. of cases)

32

12

21

43

+

Yes

Judge

(no. of cases)

14

2

5

16

+

Yes

Plaintiff

(no. of cases)

2

3

3

7

+

Yes

Patents-in-suit

(no. of cases)

0

2

1

0

+






Reputation of the Lead Attorney


Score

Reputation

(up to 5 stars)

Fish & Richardson

Carol R. Timons

Kenyon & Kenyon

Zhenya G. Simon

Merchant & Gould

Tristram C. Désiré

Robins Kaplan

Sharona L. Lynsey

Yes

Client Centric

-

Learns the client’s business, puts client’s needs first, & is an active listener.

Review by Tom Jones (Thomson Products LLC):

Carol is one of our trusted advisers because she spends (non-billable time) learning about our business before she advises us on a legal solution.

Review by Ulum Post (General Electric):

Zhenya is terrific. After spending years learning about how GE operates from the inside, we are lucky to now be able to leverage her skills on an outside counsel basis.

Review by Eric Iacunda (Salamar Tech.):

I value prompt communication and accurate updates, and Tristram always delivers. I always know what is happening in his cases, and that is critical to helping me manage our patent group.

Review by Max Deserunt (Toyota USA):

I have hired dozens of outside counsel, and Mrs. Lynsey is one of the best. She listens first, then works with her team to provide sound legal advice, and then communicates it to my team and me so we can focus on the tough judgement calls. She is simply excellent.

Yes

Legal Acumen
Intelligence & knowledge of patent law

-

Yes

Business Partner
Focuses on saving time, avoiding costs, & maximizing value.

-




Keep reading or select a case now.




Proposed Budget


Score

Budget

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

Yes

Phase 1

(pre-Markman)

105k

150k

135k

190k

-

Responsive Pleadings

Early Motion Practice

Invalidity Search & Analysis

Non-Infringement Analysis

Patent Disclosures

Initial Discovery

15k

25k

10k

15k

25k

15k

25k

25k

15k

25k

35k

20k

20k

30k

10k

20k

35k

20k

25k

35k

40k

30k

35k

25k

Yes

Phase 2

(Markman & Dispositive Motions)

450k

390k

500k

675k

-

Complete Fact Discovery

Final Patent Disclosures

Markman Brief & Hearing

Expert Reports

Expert Deposition

Dispositive Motions

120k

45k

70k

85k

55k

75k

110k

35k

60k

75k

50k

60k

120k

55k

80k

105k

55k

85k

130k

85k

110k

135k

90k

125k

Phase 3

(Trial prep & trial)

900k

850k

750k

1.3M

-

Pre-Trial Disclosures

Exhibits & Objections

Witness Preparation

Mock Jury Trial

Trial Motions

Trial Preparation & Trial

Post-Trial Motions

120k

90k

140k

170k

60k

220k

100k

110k

90k

140k

150k

50k

260k

50k

90k

75k

85k

170k

30k

250k

50k

135k

110k

190k

210k

140k

350k

170k






Non-Infringement Strategy


Score

Infringement

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

Yes

All-elements

Yes

Likely

No

Possible

+

.

Divided infringement

No

Yes

Likely

Likely

+

.

Outside the US

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

+






Invalidity Strategy


Score

Invalidity

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

.

101

No

No

No

Possible

+

.

112

(written description)

Yes

Likely

No

Possible

+

.

112

(enablement)

No

Yes

Likely

Likely

+

.

112

(indefinite)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

+

Yes

102 & 103

(written references)

Possible

Possible

Likely

Yes

+

Yes

102 & 103

(use or sale activity)

Possible

Possible

Possible

Likely






Other Possible Defenses


Score

Defenses

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

.

Marking

Likely

Likely

Likely

Yes

+

.

271

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

+

.

Laches & Estoppel

Investigate

Investigate

No

No

+

.

Inequitable conduct

Possible

Investigate

Not Likely

Investigate

+

.

License & Exhaustion

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

+




Keep reading or select a case now.




Early Motion Practice


Score

Early Motions

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

Yes

Dismiss

Yes

Likely

Likely

Yes

+

Yes

Transfer

Likely

Likely

Possible

Possible

+

.

Other

No

Yes

Possible

Yes

+






Additional Issues


Score

Additional

Fish & Richardson

Kenyon & Kenyon

Merchant & Gould

Robins Kaplan

.

Indemnification

Possible

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

+

.

Early Settlement

Possible

Possible

Likely

Yes

+

.

Inter Partes Review

Possible

Possible

Likely

Yes

+

.

Other issues

Chain of title (from inventors to the TechShell) is over overlooked, but critical. If any of the entities failed to execute the correct documents, we may be able to discuss the case, cut off pre-suit damages. Based on our review of the PTO assignment index, there were at least five transfers. We should investigate this issue early in the discovery phase.

Non-infringement is always is the easiest way to exit a case on summary judgment. To help build the strongest possible case, we suggest working closely with the designers of the accused products. This will give us the best chance to develop a non-infringement position.

These patents have been licensed by other entities. We need to seek those licenses early in discovery and then analyze them to see if any rights are held by third parties. If they are, we can potentially reduce damages in this case, or simply sign a license with the third party.

Post-Therasense, very few people consider inequitable conduct. While it is true that the bar is substantially higher now, we still believe that it is important to explore this issue. The only way this issue becomes known is if we look for it. We think it is in your best interest to explore this area before we assume that this defense will be ineffective.

Concluding Remarks


Fish & Richardson

Client selected

Kenyon & Kenyon

Client selected

Merchant & Gould

Patent Engine Pitch

Robins Kaplan

Patent Engine Pitch

Overall Score

(0-100)

87

67

85

95

.

Conclusion

We look forward to our next call to talk about our perspective on this case and how we can help you resolve it efficiently. In particular, we want to discuss the indemnification issues because it appears that your vendor may supply most, or all, of the accused features.

Best regards, Carol and the entire team at Fish.

Given the very short lifespan of the related cases, it is possible the plaintiff is demanding a nominal payment or is only seeking a reasonable redesign of the defendants’ products. We will be happy to take the lead on settlement talks, and the litigation, to the extent that is the preferred course of action.

We strongly suggest engaging with plaintiff counsel early in this case to assess their strategy. We have the technical skills and industry background to begin that work today. Thank you again for considering our proposal.

Please let us know when you are available for a call to discuss your questions and our additional strategy suggestion

The facts are the key to winning every case. Our superior technical background will help you find and present these facts so they persuade the court to agree with our position. We look forward to setting up a time for a more detailed conversation about our experience, and how we can use it to resolve this lawsuit. Thank you..




Select your case now.