Media Mentions
2012
“Area Intellectual Property Firms Hungry for Talent”
Boston Business Journal, January 6, 2012
Sarah Chapin Columbia assessed the strong demand for intellectual property services in the Boston area, noting that McDermott has “added several people in the IP group here in Boston, and I know in looking at the firms I deal with on a regular basis that others have expanded staffing as well.” Ms. Columbia, who is pictured in the article, said that for McDermott, “We have seen increased hiring in all areas, but life sciences remains particularly strong in this market.”
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
2011
“Despite Judges Reining in Damages Awards, Patent Litigation Shows Growth”
Corporate Counsel, December 1, 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia noted that the Federal Circuit, attempting to reduce damages awards in patent suits, has “made it a mission to get the word out about how damages should be calculated, and that’s had an impact on recoveries.” However, despite the new postgrant review process provided in the patent reform law to reduce patent litigation, Ms. Columbia said “I don’t think there will be the rush to postgrant review that some people are claiming, because the cost of giving up later court arguments is pretty high.” As a result, she doubted that the law “is going to have too much of an effect on [litigants] and the volume and frequency with which they file.”
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Pharma Co. Wants Ropes & Gray Atty Tossed from IP Suit”
Law360, October 14, 2011
Melissa Nott Davis and Sarah Chapin Columbia were noted as representing a Japanese pharmaceutical company and its U.S. distributor in defense of a patent infringement lawsuit over a pain relief treatment.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Melissa Nott Davis, Intellectual Property
“Genzyme Gets Rival Pain Med Barred For Now In IP Row”
Law360, October 4, 2011
Melissa Nott Davis and Sarah Chapin Columbia represent Seikagaku Corp. in a patent infringement case brought on by Genzyme Corp.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Melissa Nott Davis, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Supreme Court Ruling Seen as a Win for Patent Trolls”
Computer World, June 9, 2011
Sarah Columbia noted that the Microsoft v. i4i patent infringement lawsuit made it to the US Supreme Court over the burden of proof issue – namely, when a patent holder makes an infringement claim, the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove with “clear and convincing evidence” that the patent is invalid. Microsoft had argued for a lower standard, but the Court upheld the higher burden of proof test.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Microsoft Takes Patent Battle to Supreme Court”
CNET News, April 18, 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia noted the large number of companies that filed supporting briefs with the Supreme Court for both parties in the Microsoft-i4i patent infringement case and said: “It’s a big deal…You don't often see that many companies investing in writing amici briefs.” She added that “the status quo could have stayed as it is had the court just not taken the case,” indicating the Court’s possible willingness to make a change in invalidity standards.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
“Supreme Court to Hear Microsoft, i4i Case Monday”
CIO.com, April 16, 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia considered the consequence of defendant Microsoft’s position in this infringement case that only a “preponderance,” not “clear and convincing,” evidence should be needed to prove invalidity. “We already have a situation where the [patent] examiners are fairly overwhelmed with the volume of work. I think we're going to make it worse” if Microsoft wins, she said. Ms. Columbia noted that Microsoft and supporting companies “tend to … get a lot of lawsuits against them on patents, and in particular … by what we call non-practicing entities,” and thus, even though they have their own patents to defend, “would rather have the standard lowered for these non-practicing-entity cases.”
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
“Supreme Court Microsoft Case Could Reshape Invalidity”
Law360, April 14, 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia observed that in agreeing to hear Microsoft’s appeal of a major patent infringement damage award, “Many of us feel the Supreme Court would not have granted cert[iorari] unless [it] had designs on fiddling with the standard of proof” on patent validity. If the Court wanted the standard to stay the same, she added, “That would have been easy enough.” In Ms. Columbia’s opinion, if the Court lowers the current standard to one that requires only a preponderance of evidence, “Over time that weakens the position of patent holders and makes it easier to prove invalidity.”
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
“Microsoft Finds Friends Among Foes in Supreme Court Patent Case”
Bloomberg News, April 13, 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia said that defining the current standard of “clear and convincing” evidence of invalidity is difficult in an infringement trial because juries are instructed that they have to find “a very high probability,” which is “one of those instructions that doesn’t tell you anything.” If the Supreme Court’s decision in the current Microsoft-i4i infringement case upholds a lower “preponderance” standard, she added, it “has the potential to redraw the rules” on what is needed to invalidate a patent.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
"McDermott's Columbia Offers Expertise, a Steady Hand and Wry Wit to Lead a Strong IP Litigation Group"
Of Counsel, January 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia, in an extensive interview, said the McDermott IP Litigation Group's "real focus, particularly through the recession, has been clients, clients, clients, and we've really targeted our resources and our energies at client service and client attention." She enjoys her practice, saying, "It's intellectually challenging, it's stimulating, it's fun, it's cutting edge," but noted that "the biggest thing [we'll] continue to be challenged by through the next several years is ... the demand by our clients for alternative billing structures." Ms. Columbia also expressed pride that "here at McDermott within the IP Litigation Group we have three very senior and prominent women partners who are genuine trial lawyers... That's ... helped us a lot in recruiting [and] in client pitches ..."
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“PricewaterhouseCoopers Study Finds Jury Trials from 1995 to 2009 Yielded Higher Patent Damages Awards”
National Law Journal, January 11, 2011
Texas Lawyer, January 17, 2011
Sarah Chapin Colubmia said of the 14-year Pricewaterhouse Coopers study that, although lawyers have “all known for some time that juries are more generous than judges” in patent litigation cases, the report “demonstrates that very clearly over an extended period of time.” She added that this trend may change because the Federal Circuit “has been sending clear messages about damages awards and trying to put the pressure on patent holders to prove their damages.”
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“Patently Successful”
American Lawyer, January 1, 2011
Sarah Chapin Columbia, head of McDermott’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group, is noted as one of the few top female IP litigators and practice group leaders at major U.S. law firms.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
2010
“Study: Progress of Female Lawyers Remains Static”
Boston Business Journal, November 11, 2010
Sarah Chapin Columbia acknowledged surveys that show numbers of female partners lagging at major law firms, but added that the statistics “don’t explain what happened with individual, highly talented lawyers who decided to do something different.” She declared that firms should “look out into future generations and identify top talent, which will be a mix of women, men and diverse groups … and invest ourselves in their success because that will make us stronger.”
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
“Boston Bar housing affinity bars to boost diversity”
Boston Business Journal, September 24, 2010
Sarah Chapin Columbia discussed how increased fines for companies that mark products with expired or incorrect patent numbers have spurred a rash of damage claims against those companies. “No one stops to think that those patents have expired and we have to change our packaging.… That has attracted a lot of attention from plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys who smell the money,” Ms. Columbia said regarding companies caught in this bind. She added that it behooves companies to properly label products with the correct patent numbers in order to alert potential infringers of patented status, so they know they cannot legally copy the product; by contrast, intentionally using an expired or incorrect patent number could be viewed as unfairly stifling competition.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
"Q & A With McDermott’s Sarah Chapin Columbia"
Law360, September 13, 2010
Sarah Chapin Columbia, spoke about key trends in infringement litigation. Noting efforts to "reform" the litigation process, she stated: "I don't think we need reform or legislation; rather, we need clear guidance from the Federal Circuit to help the district court judges and the parties gain some predictability around patent litigation cases. I would also be in favor of greater deference to the district courts on issues of claim construction." Ms. Columbia, in assessing future litigation trends, predicted a "wave" of life sciences cases "resulting from the follow-on biologics -- either as a result of legislative changes or not. In the electrical/mechanical fields, the next wave will be the plethora of cases that are yet to be filed by the growing number of very sophisticated patent-holding companies around the country."
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
Sarah Columbia told Law360 on January 29 that she sees changes in the way that companies are approaching intellectual property litigation. Given the bad economy in 2009, Ms. Columbia said, “What we were seeing was companies more inclined to resolve IP litigation when it involved one commercial company suing another. … [W]aging a huge patent fight costing millions of dollars just didn’t make sense.” However, she added, when companies were sued by patent-holding firms, they often chose not to back down, a trend that (along with more lawsuits between competitors) she expects to continue in 2010. “Companies that are being chronically sued are starting to say, ‘Let’s not just pay off patent holders in settlements. Let’s make these guys work to prove their case,’” she declared.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
2009
Joseph Robinson and Robert Schaffer were featured in an October 21 Law360 story about their joining McDermott from IP boutique firm Darby & Darby. Both new partners are respected patent litigators with 20 years of experience in the New York market. In addition, Mr. Robinson has strong international experience, while Mr. Shaffer handles patent and trademark portfolios for major corporate and technology clients. Sarah Columbia, vice chair of the Firm’s IP group, called the addition of the two lawyers “a brilliant catch,” and expects them to expand their McDermott work beyond just IP.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Joseph R. Robinson, Robert Schaffer, Intellectual Property
Sarah Chapin Columbia was quoted in The National Law Journal on June 15, for a story about an increase in motions to transfer patent infringement cases out of the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas in the wake of two decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that chastised the Texas federal court for not transferring cases. Ms. Columbia noted that, before the Federal Circuit rulings, she often advised clients that fighting for a transfer out of the district would not be money well spent. Now she is advising clients to try transferring when they can make a case that parties or evidence are concentrated outside of the Eastern District of Texas. "I suspect we're all going to be thinking of that possibility [more often]," Ms. Columbia said. The NLJ story also appeared in Law.com and Corporate Legal Times.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, Patent Prosecution
Sarah Columbia was interviewed in the February 6 issue of Mass High Tech in an article regarding what questions entrepreneurs should ask their lawyers. Ms. Columbia noted that, "The first question I am typically asked by the smart entrepreneur is: 'How can you grow with us?' This is code for several different questions. Can you help us as we get started with limited resources (i.e. can you work with us to limit our expenses in the early days)? Can you grow with us as we move along our business plan?" She added that, "It is not easy to find a legal team that will work with you in the early days yet has the depth and expertise to grow with you as you realize your goals and objectives. But it is essential to find a legal team that has exactly this fit."
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
Sarah Columbia was quoted in Law360's 2009 Litigation Almanac in an article regarding patent trends. Ms. Columbia noted that the Federal Circuit's decision in In Re Bilski could significantly impact both patent prosecution and litigation. "I think that it is first going to have an impact on patent prosecution, in terms of what patents are getting through the patent office, but then it will have an impact on patent litigation in terms of what kinds of claims patent holders are going to be able to assert," she said.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution
2008
Sarah Columbia was quoted in the December 12 issue of the Boston Business Journal in an article regarding how growing companies can select the right lawyer or law firm to meet their intellectual property legal needs. Ms. Columbia recommends that a business interview several law firms to determine what it needs in an IP lawyer, noting that the best choice would be a firm that can grow with the business over time. "You really want somebody who will be a strategic partner with you. Most companies we work with are really looking for lawyers and a firm that can be strategic advisers....In the end, a firm should be able to develop an IP strategy that is driven by the business plan first," she said.
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Intellectual Property
On September 1 McDermott Will & Emery was profiled in The National Law Journal in an article titled, "McDermott's IP litigation team tallies jury trial wins." The article highlights McDermott's intellectual property litigation team including, Sarah Columbia, Joel Freed, Terry McMahon and Fay Morisseau, "rack[ing] up five mainly favorable jury trial verdicts in the course of five months in five different federal districts." The article notes, "...[I]t's an unusual string of results in an era when most cases don't even go to trial. The trials took place in federal courts in California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Texas and Wisconsin." Mr. Morisseau commented, "What we do better than anyone else in the country is we work across offices to pull the people with the skills needed and we are not hesitant to take a case to trial."
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Joel M. Freed, Terrence P. McMahon, Fay Morisseau, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
Sarah Chapin Columbia was quoted in the August 15 issue of IP Law360 in an article discussing the Firm's recent addition of Dr. Robert Underwood to its Intellectual Property, Media & Technology Department. Regarding Dr. Robert Underwood, Ms. Columbia commented, "He is a highly skilled lawyer and the wide range of experience he brings with him is a significant addition to our firm-wide patent prosecution and life sciences practices, as well as a strong supplement to our overall Boston intellectual property practice."
Sarah Chapin Columbia, Robert H. Underwood Ph.D., Intellectual Property, Life Sciences - IP, Patent Prosecution
Sarah Chapin Columbia was quoted in the June 6 issue of the Boston Business Journal in an article regarding the decreasing number of IP-related lawsuits going to trial in Massachusetts due to the belief that other venues offer speedier resolution. Some Massachusetts companies are opting to file in other federal courts where, for example, the court may have a record of being plaintiff-friendly or may offer a faster trial. "There's a lot of venue shopping going on," Ms. Columbia said.
