Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Avoid the "Meep Meep effect" in demand letters

Daniel Bond of Kirkland & Ellis, in a session on demand letters yesterday, gave some advice on "avoiding the Meep Meep effect." This turned out to be a reference to Wile E. Coyote's attempts to catch The Road Runner.

"Consider the Coyote," said Bond. "Is he just a cartoon villain or is he a cautionary tale? He never gets his man and often injures himself in the process. He is using the wrong tools in the wrong way."

So do not come on too strong when sending demand letters. Bond advised not letting a focus on your adversary blind you to risks, using the right tool for the right job, always being mindful of ways your letter can backfire, and approach each demand letter with fresh eyes.

He particularly noted the increasing risk of cease and desist shaming, where demand letters are posted on the Internet and attract bad publicity. "In the Internet age, nothing is private!" He added saying the letter is copyrighted or confidential will not work: "There is no case law supporting that argument."

In the same session, Woody Pollack of GrayRobinson gave an overview of states that have passed anti-patent enforcement laws. Vermont was the first state to do so, in 2013. "A wave of states followed Vermont's lead," he said. Now, 32 states have anti-patent enforcement laws (five of those came this year). "Of the 18 states left, only eight have not even tried, so I imagine others will be successful," said Pollack.

He said that 43% of the patent case filing from 2012-2015 was in states that now have anti-patent enforcement laws. Some 21 of the states allow both private actions and attorney general actions, seven only allow attorney general actions, and four only allow private causes of action. The states differ on how they assess a bad faith assertion of patent infringement: 21 states use factors while 11 use definitions. Pollack concluded that you should know the law of the state you're dealing with, identify the patent and owner, identify an accused product, preferably identify asserted claims, and be careful.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Patient groups and generics makers may have to bear the brunt of India’s latest attempt at patent reform
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
Paolo Tavolato, who will share the role, said private equity support would help the IP consultancy achieve its ambitious M&A plans
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has hired former Anand & Anand partner Swati Sharma and hopes to compete with specialist IP firms
Rapporteur-Judge András Kupecz ruled that education and training weren’t legitimate reasons for a member of the public to access documents
Searches for comparison prior art will be a little easier, but practitioners will have to put more thought into claim construction and design patent titles
The Helsinki local division rejected AIM Sport’s request for a preliminary injunction in a dispute with rival Supponor
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The FTC’s plans to scrutinise improperly listed Orange Book patents could make these listings more important in litigation, but firms should be looking at this anyway
Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton explain how they helped food delivery business Grubhub avoid a preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit