On July 24, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced updated procedures for the interim Director Review (DR) of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. The updated procedures could help patent practitioners manage costs by providing a new mechanism for recourse following PTAB decisions.
Jim Anderson is a litigator and trial lawyer. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation involving leading technology and pharmaceutical companies, as well as private equity, private credit, and venture funds. Jim leverages his technological background and expertise to represent clients in high-stakes business and intellectual property disputes.
Jim has experience litigating cases for clients in the life sciences, biotech, software, consumer electronics, and financial services industries. Jim has also handled lawsuits for venture and hedge funds, and real estate clients. He has litigated cases in courts throughout the United States, as well as before the International Trade Commission and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has also represented foreign and domestic companies in disputes before international arbitration tribunals under ICC and CPR Rules.
In addition to his commercial litigation practice, Jim counsels and advises private equity and private credit clients in fund-fund, lender-sponsor, and portfolio company disputes. Jim leverages his courtroom experience to help these clients navigate regulatory and litigation risks.
Jim also advises clients on intellectual property strategy spanning the full range of patent, trademark, and trade secret protections. He has developed and maintained intellectual property portfolios in a broad range of industries, including consumer products, medical devices, machining and fabrication equipment, and semiconductor devices. Jim is registered to practice before the USPTO.
Jim also maintains an active pro bono practice. He has received awards for his work on behalf of victims of domestic violence and abuse.
Jim has a background in Mechanical Engineering, with a focus on energy, power, and fuel cell technologies. Prior to his career at Proskauer, Jim served as a judicial intern in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and represented clients with the UConn Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Law Clinic.
On April 20, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced several proposed rule changes that would have an impact on patent applicants, patent holders, and patent challengers. A common thread running through several of the rule changes is the requirement of increased disclosure from litigating parties, including disclosures of related parties, ownership interests, and all settlement agreements (and any related or collateral agreements) between the parties. While the proposed rule changes are subject to a public comment period, if implemented, they would (i) introduce several major changes to the process of challenging patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and (ii.) significantly increase USPTO administrative fees.
The market for litigation finance shows no signs of slowing down, but pressure from rulemaking bodies and the judiciary may reshape whether and to what extent funding arrangements must be publicly disclosed. The use of litigation finance to fund claims that may not otherwise have been pursued or as a risk management strategy has continued to expand in recent years. For much of its history, parties were not required to disclose whether they were receiving litigation financing or the source of such funding, however the recent trend is toward increased transparency into funding arrangements.
Characterizing the decision to bring a books and records inspection action after filing a plenary or substantive action as “[i]nherently contradictory,” the Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed a Section 220 action brought by a group of investors. The decision signals that the Court of Chancery remains alert to the use of books and records inspection actions for improper purposes, including to subvert the ordinary conduct of civil discovery.