Blog — Around the water cooler

Each week we will pose these three questions to different lawyers in the legal community.

This week we talk with Kara Eve Foster Cenar, who has been practicing for 20 years. She is a partner at Bell, Boyd & Lloyd and practices intellectual property litigation and counseling.

– What do you find the most interesting about your practice?

Intellectual property has many dynamics to it that are very practical and valuable from a business perspective.  With ever-evolving changes in technology, industry, business, and the law, I enjoy the constant challenge to seek creative solutions for my clients. 

Applying known intellectual property principles or arguing for changes in the law keeps my practice fresh, interesting, and stimulating.  It is very gratifying for me to have a meaningful impact on the growth and prosperity of my clients’ businesses.

– What makes a good lawyer?

Being accessible, practical, knowledgeable, and passionate.  Essentially “Do what you like and like what you do” and the rest will fall in place.

– What is the biggest legal news right now, and what is its impact?

This is a broad question.  In the intellectual property practice the changing landscape of patent law is a hot topic.

KSR v. Teleflex — obviousness test. The Supreme Court critique of the Federal Circuit’s obviousness test in this 2007 case, the continued viability of the Circuit Court’s teaching-suggestion-motivation test after the ruling, the Court’s explication of a more expansive obviousness test, and whether the case has made it more difficult to attain patents and protect existing ones as predicted at the time of the decision.

Medimmune v. Genentech — declaratory relief and licensing. The Supreme Court ruling overturning prior Federal Circuit law, holding that a patent licensee need not breach its license agreement in order to file a declaratory judgment action regarding non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability (i.e., that payment of royalties under a licensing agreement does not mandate that there is no Article III cause or controversy, and its impact on licensors and licensees in all technological fields.

eBay v. MercExchange — injunctions. The Supreme Court ruling that an injunction should not automatically issue on a finding of patent infringement, and that traditional equitable factors governing the issuance of an injunction must still be met, how the ruling has affected the issuance of injunctions in the lower courts and the way in which patent cases are litigated.

In re Seagate — willful infringement. Impact of CAFC holding that willful infringement enhanced damages now requires “at least a showing of objective recklessness,” obviating the affirmative duty of care that was historically created by notice of infringement.

Quanta v. LG Electronics — patent exhaustion and extent of royalty rights

The impact of these decisions vary on the size and type of company. Companies need to evaluate their patent procurement strategies, as well as their enforcement strategies in view of these dynamics.