An examination of squeeze arguments in patent litigation
Rebecca Halford-Harrison
Email: Rebecca.Halford-Harrison@klgates.com
Tel: 020 7360 8294
What is a squeeze and who wants one?
 The best a man can get
 Defendants
 escaping infringement
 creating traps
 narrowing the negotiable ground
 Not just for patent cases
 Not always available
Patents Court/PCC (1997-2006)*
Infringed
Not infringed
Valid
26
26%
19
19%
Not valid
25
25%
29
29%
* Another approx 40 cases did not consider both issues (~30%).
Figures very approximate. Percentages rounded.
Court of Appeal (1997-2006)*
Infringed
Not infringed
Valid
13
39%
8
24%
Not valid
9
27%
3
9%
* Another approx 24 cases did not consider both issues (~40%).
Figures very approximate. Percentages rounded.
What are the chances?
 Very approximate
 Costs mean weaker patents skew figures
 QI: 2006: of approximately 34 cases listed for trial,
only 17 reached trial
 But we like statistics…
 Pinch of salt
Where are the squeezes




Validity v Infringement
Obviousness v Insufficiency
Obviousness v Added Matter
Prior User v Obviousness of
Improvement
 Embodiment v Scope
How does a squeeze work?
 Pincer movement
 Some examples:
 Flexible razors v Fixed razors
 Double CD boxes
 Collapsible play tents
How to avoid the traps for patentees
 Reduce the overlap
 Keep it broad
 Turn inside out
Questions?
An examination of squeeze arguments in patent litigation
Rebecca Halford-Harrison
Email: Rebecca.Halford-Harrison@klgates.com
Tel: 020 7360 8294