Litigating Intellectual Property – more harm than good?

This case is an example of the complicated nature of Intellectual property disputes, particularly those involving cross border disputes and numerous countries. If the companies have the resources these disputes can drag on for years with numerous conflicting decisions being given in different jurisdictions such as in the recent Apple and Samsung dispute.

Here, having achieved their primary aim of preventing the Chinese competitor from exhibiting at the show, the US company has decided that the benefit of continuing the action is no longer worth the cost. This could be because they now anticipate that there is little chance of the action being successful or potentially they have realised that if they continue the litigation until its conclusion, they won’t then have the funds to fully exploit and market the product they have fought so hard to protect.

There is also some benefit in ‘keeping the powder dry’ and avoiding the chance of adverse judicial rulings on the validity and scope of your IP rights limiting their benefit and value. However, it seems that they could now be forced to run this risk if they are to successfully defend the application for damages and costs.

The tables have turned on a US-based hoverboard maker that sued a Chinese competitor for patent infringement.

Future Motion’s complaint led to Changzhou First International Trade’s products being seized at the CES tech trade show in January.

But the Chinese firm is now seeking $100,000 (£69,900) in damages plus reimbursement of its legal fees after the Californian firm dropped its claim.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35599483