X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Silicon Valley veteran Mary Doyle came to Palm Inc. during a period in 2003 when competitor RIM was locking horns with NTP in a patent dispute that would later be resolved by a $612 million settlement. Not to be caught flat-footed, Doyle took note of the increased risk for technology companies and has since led the way for Palm’s patent strategy that is in place today. Doyle now heads up a team of 10 attorneys at the company’s headquarters in Sunnyvale. A 1978 graduate of Boalt Hall School of Law, Doyle began her career as a litigator with the law firm now known as Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. She joined the ranks of in-house counsel in 1984. Doyle was interviewed by Scott Martin, an editor at Law.com, which is affiliated with GC California magazine. Q: Could you give a bird’s-eye view of Palm’s legal department and its general structure? A: We’ve got three international lawyers. One is on a contract basis because she is working from Germany. We also have a senior director and a director in what we call APAC (Asian Pacific Australia). And then we have seven who reside here, including me, with each of them addressing a particular client base. Q: How many of your attorneys specialize in intellectual property? A: I have a lawyer who specializes in defensive claims and litigation, including patent cases, and there is a patent lawyer who is responsible for our patent strategy. We rely heavily on outside counsel. Our work allocation strategy is based on the relative cost of doing a project inside or out. Q: How many outside firms do you use? A: Anywhere between 30 and 50. It’s probably closer to 30. Q: Who is your No. 1 go-to firm if you have one? A: I would have to say that Wilson Sonsini is our number one go-to when it comes to corporate and securities work. We also look to them for a variety of other contract and IP support matters. But we are also very happy with the services of a variety of other firms in Silicon Valley. For example, we look to Morgan Lewis, Cooley Godward and DLA Piper Rudnick when it comes to contracting. We look to Fenwick for trademark, IP and other support. We employ the services of a variety of patent firms, including Fenwick, but specifically smaller firms when looking for the kinds of resources that we need to fuel our patent prosecution strategy. We have a very highly developed patent prosecution strategy so that we can be defensive primarily. But we can also be offensive, should it come to that, in the exploitation of our patent assets. Q: Where you’ve got Wilson Sonsini working, mainly in corporate securities work and contract and IP support and litigation, are those your biggest areas of need for outside counsel? A: Generally speaking, I would say that our budget is divided among two principal categories. The first would be our in-house head count, the resources necessary to support that head count and the budget for that head count to allocate to outside counsel when it is necessary. The other category is litigation, which is typically outsourced. That would often be true also of patent prosecutions. We innovate in a variety of areas on the hardware side, the firmware side and the software side. So we look to people with different areas of expertise and experience to support our patent prosecution effort. We don’t generally find that you can locate all of those requirements in a single firm. Q: How has the NTP-RIM patent settlement affected Palm, if at all? A: To my knowledge, there have been no immediate effects of the settlement on Palm. I have to say that we anticipated it, and I think you will see that our CEO and other Palm executives have been quoted to the effect that this result was expected. As you know, well over 90 percent of litigation settles before the judge, jury or appellate court has a final say. We couldn’t see why that wouldn’t be true here, particularly given the perceived impact of this litigation on the business of RIM and the fact that an injunction would, of course, have undercut any benefit in the long run to NTP. Q: For tech companies, what is the lesson to be learned from this case? A: Well, I believe the lesson has already been learned and is implemented in most tech companies. And that is that litigation of all sorts should be evaluated early for settlement possibilities. I don’t know anything about the details of the negotiations between RIM and NTP, but my suspicions are that NTP was holding out for certain terms that did not serve RIM’s ultimate business interests. Q: What sort of lesson does this case offer others in the industry who might be involved with dealing with aggressive patent litigants? A: I believe that the whole area of patent litigation is evolving and presenting ever-increasing challenges to corporate defendants and, in particular, to technology companies. As a consequence, I think it is very important for in-house legal departments to develop specific expertise, not so much at the patent prosecution level, but at the patent strategy level. It’s also important for general counsel to increase their awareness of this challenge. It has been developing, I believe, for at least five years and is highlighted by a number of risks. One is the rise of the patent troll, a term coined by someone who is now considered one of them. Q: Do you view RIM’s having to shell out $612 million to settle as a sign of being held ransom by patent trolls? A: I am not sure I would characterize it that way. I believe there are individual inventors in the world who deserve to benefit from their inventions just as we corporate inventors do, so I think that is probably an overly dramatic characterization. However, the current availability of injunctive relief in every instance regardless of whether the plaintiff will suffer damages or any harm if the injunction is not granted is something I think that our courts and legislative branches ought to reconsider. Q: Does the RIM case highlight problems with the patent process and the USPTO? A: I believe the RIM case illustrates several different issues. One is that the patents that were at issue in that case have been rejected upon reexamination by the patent and trademark office. That suggests that something went wrong in the initial review. Two, I think the case illustrates the leverage that a patent litigant gains from the threat of an injunction. I would say a $612 million agreement is certainly a large one, and without knowing anything about the business of RIM, it is hard to say whether that is unjustified under the circumstances, but it certainly is very large. Third, I think the case highlights the importance of managing this type of litigation carefully and looking early for any type of opportunity to settle. Q: How much do you worry about patent holders or patent trolls trying to lay claim to technology built into Palm products? A: I would like to refer instead to a study that I understood was undertaken by a large semiconductor company in Silicon Valley, which determined that the standard desktop computer was theoretically, at least based on a high-level review of all the patents that had been issued as to the day of the study, subject to as many as 10,000 of them. If each of those patent holders claimed some percentage share in the revenues for the effective product, clearly there wouldn’t be any profit left for anyone and, ultimately, no product. The question is how do you reward innovation in that context and how do you avoid damaging or destroying business that might benefit from those same innovations? I think you also have to look at that in the context of patent strategy as it has existed for many years among corporate or technology companies. Your patent portfolio was developed, historically, chiefly as a defensive asset rather than an offensive one. No one looked at it traditionally as a way to earn money. That view is changing. � If another of our competitors were to proceed against us because they have a patent that they think might implicate one of our products, more likely than not, one of their products will implicate one of our patents. Q: Do you view this as something that needs to be worked out within the USPTO? A: I believe that it’s Congress and not the USPTO that should impact this. I do not believe that the current patent laws take into account the rapid evolution of technology and innovation nor the fact that we have, shall we say, “court-enhanced” patent opportunities. Q: You worked at General Magic before coming to Palm. How did the work you did there prepare you for your role at Palm? A: General Magic was a Silicon Valley company, and that’s where I cut my teeth. The valley is a very unique place for general counsel. It presents a number of challenges that are unique to this environment and the industries that flourish here, specifically licensing, patent prosecution and strategy, outsourced manufacturing and supply chain management. Q: What made you decide to go in-house? A: I think what drove me in-house was my interest in business. I am very committed to the collaborative process necessary to producing product for customers of a business. That’s a very exciting process to me. Q: What’s a typical day at Palm like for you? A: Back-to-back meetings with members of the executive staff � I consider myself a friend and counselor to them all � and then with members of my team and their business clients with outside counsel as well as with my own administrative staff as I drive the strategic agenda of the department. Q: What’s the best career advice you’ve been given? A: Don’t hesitate to catch the next wave. Q: Have you ever been tempted to own a BlackBerry? A: Never.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.