Our business is to create for our clients valuable property
 and contractual rights in their ideas.
January 2016

(951) 395-9910

Seasons Greetings and Happy New Year!
The Year 2015 was transitional for Connors & Associates pc. In November the firm's founder, John J. Connors, retired as lead director of ICI Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ). John wrote the foundational patents that protected ICU's products over a 30-year period, and served as temporary CFO, and a member of the audit, compensation, and governance committees.  Connors & Associatespc was founded about the same time that John began working with Dr. George A. Lopez M.D., the inventor of the ICU's products and founder of ICU Medical, Inc. Because of John's experience working with the founder of a start-up company that went public, he understands that investors demand valid and enforceable patents upon which to base their investment.  Connors & Associatespc produces such patents.
Thomas Connors, John's son, has been with the firm for over 10 years, and handles all trademark and patent prosecution, and client correspondence.  He also now manages the firm's business. John continues to work closely with Thomas as needed, but mainly focuses on patent application preparation.  He also gives talks on intellectual property for inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses.  The firm's data watchdog and tracker of actions items critical to securing the intellectual property of our clients, Beth Ellison, has been with the firm for over 20 years.  Beth now primarily assists Thomas in performing his duties. Brady Connors, John's grandson, has now been with the firm for 1 year, and assist Thomas and John in facilitating client communication.




Congressional Watch
A New Era In Patent Law 
The main objective of this newsletter is to alert you to the rapidly changing legal environment in United States patent law.
The 2013 American Invents Act (AIA) made sweeping changes in the United States patent law. In the early 1990's Global Corporations began lobbying Congress to change the United States patent law to conform to the international model based on the 19th Century German patent law.  The AIA is the desired result of their lobbying efforts.

Congressman Royce and John J. Connors

Over the course of the next few decades, these changes will affect the way commercially valuable ideas are developed and protected.  Will these AIA changes be good for society as a whole? Or will these AIA changes primarily assist the economically powerful? Several of these AIA changes are now being challenged in the courts, and we anticipate that the United States Supreme Court will be making determinations as to the constitutionality of many of these changes.
Those adversely affected by these AIA changes are now lobby Congress to enact legislation that will alleviate hardships caused by these changes.  A major concern of our clients is the negative impact patent office grant proceedings have on the ability of startup companies to raise capital to launch a business based on a patented invention. It may be virtually impossible to persuade an investor to risk capital if the patent's validity can be challenged in such proceedings.  Especially since a lawsuit seeking to stop a competitor from selling the patented invention can be stayed until the issue of validity is decided, which could be many years. Consequently, the AIA post grant proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office are a disincentive to invest in any startup companies based on a patented invention. 

Contact Information
John J. Connors  Patent Attorney
Phone: (951) 395-9910


Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Patent Infringement Cases

This month's newsletter will address amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and their effect on patent litigation. These new rules, which became effective on December 1, 2015 and apply to all actions pending as of that date, modify several key aspects of patent proceedings including the standards for pleadings and the procedural rules and scope of discovery. A summary of the amendments below is suggestive of the continuing trend in federal litigation toward identifying legitimate complaints and improving the general efficiency of the legal system.
Pleadings Requirements . The Appendix of Forms under Rule 84 of FRCP have been repealed under the amendments. Specifically, Form 18, which allowed plaintiffs to initiate patent litigation with bare-bones claims, is no longer applicable. Form 18 enabled litigants to file standardized, minimally descriptive claims against multiple defendants with rudimentary information, including the details of the patent, the assertion that the defendant allegedly infringed on such patent and that the plaintiff incurred damages.

With the removal of Form 18 from FRCP, plaintiffs will be obligated to meet the enhanced pleading requirements set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2007 and 2009 (Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal).  Under these rulings, the plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under the law. This criteria entails a more substantive examination by the court including dismissing pleadings that are mere conclusions and determining whether properly plead claims reasonably merit relief. However, as the judiciary has not issued definitive pleadings rules, the degree of specificity differs considerably among various jurisdictions.

Discovery Procedures . Specific rules under FRCP have been amended to enhance the procedural efficacy of the litigation process. Under the amended Rule 16(b)(2), courts must issue an order to schedule the matter (including trial date, discovery deadlines etc.) within 90 days after the defendant has been served or within 60 days after the defendant has appeared before the court in connection with the litigation. A party may now serve discovery requests 21 days after service of the complaint and summons. The effect of this amendment is to allow requests to be issued before the first Rule 26(f) conference even takes place. Prior to this revision, discovery requests could not be served until the Rule 26(f) conference, which often occurred months after the complaint was filed. The 30 day window to respond to discovery requests begins at the time the conference takes place.
Thomas Connors, John J. Connors, Beth Ellison and Brady Connors

Scope of discovery . The amended Rule 26(b)(1) abrogates the prior standard of discovery, which provided that it be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" and instead requires that discovery be "proportional to the needs of the case." As such, discovery requests and responses must be designed to be commensurate with the scope of the litigation by accounting for a number of factors. These include the issues presented by the dispute, the monetary value of the claim, the resources of the parties, the availability of information and the significance of the discovery. The drafters intended to reduce the expenses and time associated with the discovery process by providing a standard of "proportionality" for evaluating what is not discoverable in litigation.

The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will have a significant effect on the initiation and execution of patent infringement actions. The application of the plausibility standard for making a threshold pleading and the changes to discovery rules and procedures are intended to enhance both the specificity of the complaint and the outcome of discovery proceedings at the outset. Understanding and complying with these new rules, and increasing the efficiency of your litigation proceeding, requires the knowledge of a patent attorney with decades of experience in patent law. My office can provide thorough and current legal advice tailored to your specific legal concerns. Contact me at (951) 395-9910 or visit my website at www.inventorbeware.com .


Connors & Associates pc 

Stay Connected with Connors & Associates
Like me on Facebook       Follow me on Twitter       View my profile on LinkedIn       View my videos on YouTube