Avoid the "Meep Meep effect" in demand letters
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 2024

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

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
The winner of Managing IP’s Life Achievement Award discusses 50 years in IP law and how even he can’t avoid imposter syndrome
Saya Choudhary of Singh & Singh explains how her team navigated nine years of litigation to secure record damages of $29 million and the lessons learned along the way
The full list of finalists has been revealed and the winners will be presented on June 20 at the Metropolitan Club in New York
A team of IP and media law specialists has joined from SKW Schwarz alongside a former counsel at Sky
The Irish government has delayed a planned referendum on whether Ireland should join the Unified Patent Court, prompting concern about when a vote may take place
With more than 250 winners recognised during the ceremony, there are many reasons to be positive about the health of the IP industry in EMEA
Gift this article