One great tip I received as a younger patent attorney was to name components to express function. Our co-founding partner, Ron Smith was a master of drafting claims. His sister, an English professor used to “grade his papers” by reading his patent applications and bleeding (using a red pen) all over them. For example, the phrase “in order to” should not be used. Just say “to” because “in order” is redundant.

On a more substantive issue, it is good practice in mechanical or electrical cases to name components with a name that expresses their function. Thus, calling something a “member” or “an elongate member” or “a cylindrical member” should be avoided. For example, here’s a phrase that could be improved:

“a member extending between the two arm rests and behind the back, wherein the member stabilizes the back;”

If the member stabilizes the back, name it a stabilizer instead of a member. That makes the phrase more straightforward:

“a stabilizer extending between the two arm rests and behind the back for stabilizing the back;”

Or perhaps better yet:

“a back stabilizer extending between the two arm rests and behind the back;”

Notice how a function-descriptive name like “stabilizer” shortens the phrase and an even more function-descriptive name like “back stabilizer” shortens it even more. Using function-descriptive names also makes it easier to remember the various parts as the application is being written.

Patent cases on contingency introduce some complexities not found in other areas of the law. We are occasionally asked to write a letter, file a patent application, or handle a lawsuit on a contingent fee basis. Our policy is to decline such requests because contingency fee arrangements are usually unfair to the client.

Suppose a client asks us to write a demand letter for $100,000 on a contingency fee basis. They tell us to keep a third of the proceeds if the letter results in payment. We could receive a legal fee of $33,333.33 for a letter that would normally cost about $600.00. It makes much more sense for the client to pay the small letter-drafting fee and keep the proceeds.

Signing a document

Contingency in Patent Applications

The same logic applies to the filing of a patent application. To avoid a $10,000.00 legal fee for preparation of a mechanical patent application, for example, a client may propose that we waive the fee and participate in the profits derived from the invention. If the invention meets with commercial success, the client could pay a fee far in excess of $10,000.00.

If the invention is not commercially successful, we have worked for two to three weeks with no revenue. This is even though our overhead bills never stop coming in. We have no control over whether or not an invention meets with commercial success. That depends upon the marketing efforts made by the inventor, not upon the quality of the patent application. Consumers don’t purchase products because the patent application for the product is well-written. Being full-time patent attorneys, we can do no more than advise our clients to avoid marketing scams.

Contingency in Patent Lawsuits

A different reasoning applies to lawsuits. Contingency fee arrangements are common in personal injury (PI) cases because the only issue in such cases is damages. The liability is usually clear and most PI law firms will not accept a case on a contingent fee basis if liability is not clear. Thus, the only issue in most PI cases is how large the payment will be, not whether or not there will be a payment.

In intellectual property cases, liability is always disputed. An accused infringer will attack the validity of the patent by citing prior art that was not cited by the examiner, and will argue noninfringement as a backup defense. A typical patent infringement suit lasts two or three years and requires the full-time attention of at least one lawyer. No lawyer with an office can stay in business without revenue for such a long period of time. Personal injury cases, on the other hand, are over much quicker and, again, the only issue is the size of the recovery.

In most cases, we are able to quote a flat fee for our services. This removes the uncertainty caused by hourly rates. When a lawyer quotes a fee of $300 to $500 per hour to write a letter or to prepare a patent application, the inventor’s reply is always “Write fast.” Well, that leads to a letter or patent application prepared in a bum’s rush. A well-crafted letter, patent application, or an amendment to a patent application, is best prepared in a focused, well thought out manner. A flat fee protects the client from surprises, ensures a thorough preparation of the application, and is, we believe, the only fair alternative to hourly rates and contingency fees.

Tag: fees

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Anton Hopen

U.S. Patent Attorney with smithhopen.com.