Anatomy of a Patent Infringement Lawsuit
The world of intellectual property can get sticky and sometimes even end up in court. Hearing Components recently had their day
Dr. Bob Oliveira knows a thing or two about innovation. Owner of 15 patents, the president and CEO of Oakdale-based Hearing Components says innovation is the key to a good invention or patent, but it also has to have teeth. “When you file patents, do it in a way that you’ll anticipate fighting them in court. You have to anticipate litigation or it’s not worth it.” In 1990, after working at 3M for 18 years, Oliveira spun off his ear canal and hearing devices business to a separate venture.
Hearing Components recently won a patent infringement lawsuit against Chicago’s Shure Inc. The disputed patents involved in-ear noise cancellation foam tips connected to a hearing device. “The invention was to use foam material with the earphone to give a better experience without foam being left behind in the ear,” says Oliveira.
Filed in May 2007, preparations for the trial began with discovery, a process in which paperwork and other materials are sent back and forth between each party to determine if a case exists. Next up, depositions. Because of his roles as both inventor and CEO, Oliveira “was deposed for eight or nine hours one day. It’s a fairly intense experience.”
Hearing Components won the jury trial in January 2009, though a bench trial at the same time yielded somewhat complicated results. The judge agreed with Shure that one category should be treated separately, and granted Judgment as Matter of Law (JMOL), reversing part of the jury decision.
In February 2010, briefs were presented to the United States Appellate Court in Washington, D.C. Hearing Components disputed the JMOL decision from the jury trial, and said that a foam patent category that the judge dismissed should have been included in the jury trial. Shure appealed the result of the jury trial, claimed that the patents themselves were invalid, and that they weren’t notified soon enough they were infringing upon any patents.
The three-judge panel published its ruling in April 2010, overturning only the two points Hearing Components had appealed. Oliveira said the two companies got together and reached a confidential settlement to avoid further litigation over the wax guards.
The process was long and came at a great expense; over $4 million dollars for the 35-employee company. “For a little company, it’s a huge investment,” says Oliveira. “If we didn’t believe in the importance of protecting our patents, we wouldn’t do it.”
