th2009 the 5IP China Intellectual Property Summit Forum2009第五届中国IP China知识产权峰会南京，2009年12月18-19日Advanced Strategies for IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查高阶策略演讲人：王宁玲/Ningling Wang吴晓群/Sherry Wu©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPAdvanced Strategies for IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查高阶策略Why IP due diligence investigations are so important-whatever the deal -whatever side you’re on为何知识产权尽职调查如此重要-无论何种交易-无论您属于哪一方2©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP1
Why Advanced Strategies for IP Due Diligence?为什么需要知识产权尽职调查高阶策略？When IP is involved in the deal, you are:–Evaluating value: enhance assets or expose overvalued assets –Assessing and managing risks–Providing information to those responsible for valuing the IP to determine a “bottom line” for the transaction 当交易涉及知识产权时，您可以：–进行价值评估：提升资产价值或揭示估价过高的资产–评估和管理风险–为知识产权价值评估人员提供信息，以确定交易的“底线”3©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPIP is a Valuable Asset (cont.)知识产权是最有价值的资产（续）IP is often the single most valuable asset of a company–Percentage of intangible assetsMicrosoft: %Merck: %IP due diligence is increasingly important in today’s corporate transactions involving technology知识产权通常是公司最有价值的资产–无形资产的比重微软：%默克：%知识产权尽职调查在当今涉及技术的公司交易中变得日益重要4©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP2
IP is a Valuable Asset 知识产权是最有价值的资产Why?–IP protects R&D, which is expensive–The deals are bigger–IP is more critical to the deals–Large pharma is in-licensing to fill “pipeline” of new drugs–In uncertain economic times, in-licensing may be more immediately profitable为什么？–知识产权可保护研发成果（耗资巨大）–交易规模越来越大–知识产权对于交易具有至关重要的作用–大型制药公司通过引入授权来填充新药供应线–在不稳定的经济时期，引入授权更有可能带来即时的经济效益5©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPBusiness Objectives (cont.)商业目标（续）Buyer’s perspective–Identify Target IP (Patents, TMs, Trade Secrets, etc.)–Identify Strength & Scope of Target IP–Identify Risks with Target IPTechnicalBusinessLegal买方角度–确定目标知识产权（专利、商标、商业秘密等）–确定目标知识产权的强度和范围–确定目标知识产权涉及的风险技术商业法律6©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP3
Business Objectives商业目标–Determine Value of Target IP–Link IP to Sales, Market Share–Use Transaction Agreement to Minimize Known Risks–确定目标知识产权的价值–将知识产权与销售和市场份额挂钩–通过签署交易协议将已知风险降至最低7©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPBusiness Objectives商业目标Seller’s perspective–Clarify limits of IP being sold; avoid continuing obligations–Realize maximum value from sale of IP–Minimize potential liability to buyer for fraud or misrepresentation –Avoid potential third party claims卖方角度–说明出售的知识产权的限制；规避持续义务–通过知识产权销售实现价值最大化–最大限度地减少须向买方承担的潜在欺诈或失实陈述责任–规避第三方可能提出的要求8©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP4
Three Key Areas to Consider需考虑的三个关键问题Ownership -(who owns the IP?)Scope, Validity, Enforceability –(can you keep the competition out?)Freedom to Operate -(are you buying a lawsuit?)所有权－（谁拥有知识产权？）范围、有效性、可执行性－（您能否排除竞争？）自由使用权－（您是否正招致诉讼？）9©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPDangers of Inadequate IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查不充分的危害Failure to acquire title to key IPFailure to acquire exclusivetitle to key IP (co-owners, joint ventures, liens, etc.)Failure to acquire rights (. licenses) necessary to operateFailure to recognize that transaction itself may cause change or loss of key IP rights to target–Issue of assignability of IP agreements未能取得关键知识产权的所有权未能取得关键知识产权的独占权（共同拥有人、合资企业、留置权等）未能取得进行自由经营所必需的权利（如许可）未能认识到交易本身可能给被收购方带来关键知识产权权利的变更或损失–知识产权协议的可转让性问题10©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP5
Dangers of Inadequate IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查不充分的危害Perils and pitfalls of inadequate due diligence–Failure to recognize that transaction may impose unwarranted IP obligations on acquirerDuty to disclose / to keep secret / to pay royalties / grant-backs 尽职调查不充分的危险及陷井–未能认识到交易可能给购买方带来毫无根据的知识产权义务披露/保密/支付许可使用费/回馈授权的义务11©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPDangers of Inadequate IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查不充分的危害–“Buying” an IP lawsuitNeed to evaluate potential risk / reward of existingclaims, threats or suitsHarder to evaluate futurethreats created by change in competitive picture or arrival of “deep pockets”–招致知识产权诉讼有必要评估潜在的风险/既有权利要求的回报、威胁或诉讼很难评估将来因竞争格局发生变化或出现“大型企业”而可能产生的威胁12©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP6
Scope of Due Diligence Varies尽职调查范围不尽相同Breadth and depth of the analysis is proportional to the importance of the IP and its impact on the value of the transaction–“Transactions” can take many forms Mergers, licenses, divestments, venture capital investments, collaborative research projects, etc.分析的广度和深度与知识产权的重要性及其对交易价值的影响成正比–“交易”可采取多种形式兼并、许可、资产剥离、风险投资、合作研究项目等等13©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPScope of Due Diligence Varies尽职调查范围不尽相同–“Value” can take many formsExclusivity, cash, royalties, cross-licenses, access to funding or new technology, improved market position, etc.–“IP” can take many formsPatents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets–“价值”可采取多种形式独占权、现金、许可使用费、交叉许可、获得资金或新技术、提高的市场地位等–“知识产权”可采取多种形式专利、版权、商标、商业秘密14©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP7
Goals of IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查的目标Nirvana–What everyone wants –“No IP problem”Reality–To identify potential IP problems that may affect the value of the deal (or even stop the deal)理想的状态–每个人都希望“不存在任何知识产权问题”现实–确定可能影响交易价值（或导致交易终止）的潜在知识产权问题15©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPGoals of IP Due Diligence知识产权尽职调查的目标–To evaluate, prioritize, and quantify IP risks and rewardsExisting IP issues v. evaluation of future issuesTo allocate IP risks and rewards in the transaction documentTo link target’s IP to existing and future revenue streams–对知识产权风险和回报进行评估、优先排序和量化当前知识产权问题相对与对未来问题的评估在交易文件中对知识产权风险和回报进行分配将被收购方的知识产权同当前和未来收入流挂钩16©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP8
Ownership and Transferability Analysis所有权与可转让性分析Does the target own the IP?Can target convey clear title?. Law: Joint Owners can without consent of other co-owners–License or sell rights to third party–Dedicate patent to public被收购方是否拥有该知识产权？被收购方能否转让该产权的所有权？美国法律：共同所有人可以在未经其它共同所有人同意的情况下–向第三方授予许可或出售权利–将专利捐献给公众17©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPOwnership: . Law所有权：美国法律In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other . §262 Need not share license royalties!May grant immunity from suit!在没有相反协议的情况下，专利各共同所有人可以不经其他所有人的同意且也无需向其交代，在美国境内制造、使用、许诺销售或销售专利发明，或将该等专利发明进口到美国。美国法典第35章第262条无需分享许可使用费！可以授予诉讼豁免权！18©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP9
Ownership and Transferability Analysis所有权与可转让性分析Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even not physically work together or at same did not make same type of amount of did not contribute to subject matter of every claim尽管存在以下情形，发明人仍然可以共同申请专利1.没有在一处一起工作或没有同时参与工作2.各方的贡献程度不同3.各方并未就每项权利要求标的做出贡献19©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase I: Initial Steps for Ownership Analysis第一阶段：所有权分析的第一步USPTO assignment records–Assignment division page of website–Order copies of recorded assignments–All patents and applications, not just key onesConfirm that inventors assigned rights to targetConfirm that timely payment of maintenance fees美国专利商标局的转让记录–转让司网站页面–购买记录转让的副本–针对所有专利和申请，不仅仅限于关键专利确认发明人已经向被收购方转让了权利确认及时支付了维持费用20©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP10
Phase I: Checklist of Documents第一阶段：文件检查单Contracts that should be reviewed–Assignments–Licenses–Security interests, options–Employment agreements, especially inventors and other technical personnel应审查的合同–转让协议–许可协议–有价证卷权益和股票期权协议–雇佣协议，特别是与发明人和其它技术人员的雇佣协议21©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase I: Checklist of Documents第一阶段：文件检查单–Consultant/contractor agreement–Joint Research or Development agreements–Settlement agreements–Manufacturing agreements–顾问和承包商协议–共同研究或开发协议–和解协议–制造协议22©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP11
Phase II: Ownership & Transferability Analysis第二阶段：所有权与可转让性分析How?–Trace assignments back to inventor(s)–Review employment contracts of inventor(s) or if none, was inventor hired to invent (common law obligation to assign)–Assess whether names persons are inventors and if unnamed persons are inventors如何进行分析？–将转让追溯到发明人–审查发明人的雇佣合同；如果不存在该等合同，则考虑发明人是否为被聘用进行发明研究（普通法规定的转让义务）–评估署名人士是否为发明人；发明人是否为未署名的人士23©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase II: Ownership & Transferability Analysis第二阶段：所有权与可转让性分析–Identify inventor’s obligations to third parties –Identify Target’s obligations to third partiesLicensesDevelopment agreementsManufacturing agreements–确定发明人对第三方的义务–确定被收购方对第三方的义务许可协议开发协议制造协议24©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP12
Phase III: What Else to Look For第三阶段：应查证的其他问题What else might be lurking?–Government march-in rights, 35 . §§'201-212Arises in federally funded research (NIH, DOE, USDA)Applies only to . small business and universitiesHired to Invent?–Common-law obligation to assign–Statutory可能隐藏的其它问题？–政府介入权，美国法典第35章第201-212条经常出现在美国联邦政府所赞助的研究中（美国国立卫生研究院、美国能源部和美国农业部）仅适用于美国小型企业和大学聘用发明？–普通法规定的转让义务–法定25©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase III: Recommendations第三阶段：建议Correction of Inventorship–Patent invalid unless inventorship remedied–Lack of deceptive intent for both nonjoinder and misjoinderWhat is the risk that patent could be unenforceable if intentional, ., inventor obliged to assign to other than target发明人的正确性–除非发明人得到适当纠正，否则专利无效–缺少非共同诉讼和不合法的共同诉讼所必需的欺骗性意图如果发明人有义务将发明转让给被收购方之外的其他人，则专利的可执行性存在哪些风险？26©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP13
Validity of the Patents专利有效性Verify Priority Claims and Filing DeadlinesProving Infringement:–Will the claims be construed to literally cover key technology?–What design-around wiggle room is there?–Will the key claims be sustained as valid?核实优先权权利要求和提交期限证明侵权–权利要求解释是否会涵盖关键技术？–如何进行规避设计？–关键权利要求能否维持其有效性？27©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPEvaluating Scope of Target’s Patents评估被收购方专利的范围Claim construction of relevant claims is fundamental building block for scope of protection and validity analysis–What are potential claim construction issues?Narrow construction–vulnerability to design around?相关的权利要求解释是保护范围和有效性分析的基础–权利要求解释的潜在问题？狭义解释–进行规避设计的可能性？28©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP14
Evaluating Scope of Target’s Patents评估被收购方专利的范围Broad construction–prior art problem?Ambiguity: defective drafting can lead to indefiniteness–Indefiniteness issues (35 . §112, ¶ 2) 广义解释–在先技术问题？模糊性：欠佳的权利要求书起草可能导致模糊性–权利要求书模糊性问题（35 . §112, ¶ 2）29©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase I: Evaluation of Target’s Patents第一阶段：评估被收购方的专利Framework for claim construction–Specification highly relevant–Special definitions given by patentee–Context of entire patentConsider foreign counterparts for claim interpretation positionsConsider related . patents and applications权利要求解释的框架–与专利说明书高度相关–专利权人所赋予的特别定义–整个专利的上下文考虑相关外国专利对于权利要求解释的看法考虑相关的美国专利和申请30©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP15
Phase I: Evaluation of Target’s Patents第一阶段：评估被收购方的专利Start well-directed prior-art search–Patents–Publications (including theses, posters, and lecture summaries by inventors)开始进行指向明确的在先技术检索–专利–出版物（包括发明人的论文、海报以及讲义大纲）31©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase II: Evaluation of Target’s Patents and Related Technical Information第二阶段：评估被收购方的专利和相关技术资料Compare construed claims to available technical information relating to the targets current products/services, future targets/services, and likely design-arounds–Determine whether any claims cover the technologyAre there weaknesses on one or more claims that a third party could exploit to design around?将经解释的权利要求与涉及被收购方当前产品/服务、未来目标/服务以及潜在回避设计的技术资料进行比较–确定是否有任何权利要求涵盖该技术其中一项或多项权利要求是否存在任何弱点可被第三方加以利用进行规避设计？32©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP16
Phase II: Evaluation of Target’s Patents and Related Technical Information第二阶段：评估被收购方的专利和相关技术资料–Assess validityNovelty and non-obviousnessArt cited during prosecutionSupplemented with prior-art search results–评估有效性新颖性和非显而易见性专利申办过程中所引述的技术在先技术检索结果补充33©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPEnforceability of Patents专利可执行性Assess enforceability–Inequitable conduct renders all claims unenforceable–Material information cited?–Are examples in patent accurate?–Declarations, factual representations–Intent: not gross negligence可执行性评估–不公平行为导致所有权利要求不可执行–引述的重要资料？–专利中的例子是否准确？–声明、事实陈述–意图：不存在重大过失34©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP17
Enforceability Checklist可执行性检查清单Tense used for examples in patent?All experiments in patent performed as described?Experiment not included in specification? Why?Accuracy of statement of advantageous properties?Interview inventors and patent agents专利中所使用的时态？专利中根据描述所进行的所有实验？未包括在专利说明书中的实验？为什么？关于优势性能说明的准确性？与发明人和专利代理人进行面谈35©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase III: Recommendations for Patent Coverage第三阶段：关于专利范围的建议Reissue –narrow or broaden claims if within two years of the patent’s original grant date or continuation application and no reissue recaptureRe-examination –narrow claimsContinuing prosecution –narrow or broaden claims重新领证－在专利原始授予日起的二年内，或在连续申请过程中且没有再次进行重新领证的情况下，缩小或扩大权利要求范围专利复审－缩小权利要求范围延续申请－缩小或扩大权利要求范围36©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP18
Freedom to Operate: Are You Buying a Lawsuit?自由使用权：您是否正招致诉讼？Search and evaluate to find out if target’s current or future products/services are likely to infringe . patents of others–Infringement Search–Infringement Analysis进行检索和评估，以查实被收购方当前或未来的产品/服务是否可能侵犯他人的美国专利–侵权检索–侵权分析37©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPFreedom to Operate: Are You Buying a Lawsuit?自由使用权：您是否正招致诉讼?Analyze initial results from the “FTO” search–Compare claims of IP identified to target’s technology–Categorize as relevant or notMay need to order file history通过自由使用权检索，对初步结果进行分析–将经确认的知识产权权利要求与被收购方的技术进行比较–依据相关性进行分类可能需要调阅专利申请历史38©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP19
Freedom to Operate自由使用权If FTO problem, consider options:–Who is patentee (competitor or not?)–Design-around possible?–Potential damages/injunction?–Licenses?–Leverage with patentee?如果存在自由使用权问题，考虑以下问题：–谁是专利权人（竞争对手或非竞争对手？）–能否进行规避设计？–潜在的损害赔偿金/禁止令？–许可？–可否取得专利权人的支持？39©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPFreedom to Operate Checklist自由使用权检查清单Ask target:–Aware of specific third party IP?–Monitoring any prosecution?–Approached by third party re IP?–Litigation or threat of litigation–Licensed any IP? Licenses transferable?寻问被收购方以下问题：–是否知道第三方某一具体知识产权的存在？–是否正在监查任何专利申请？–是否有任何第三方就知识产权提出交涉要求？–诉讼或诉讼威胁–是否已就任何知识产权授予过许可？许可能否转让？40©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP20
Phase I: Freedom to Operate Analysis第一阶段：自由使用权分析Examine–License Agreements –do they provide rights sought?Licenses assignable?Upstream and downstream–Supply Agreements?Do they identify target?Target obliged to indemnify customers审查–许可协议－他们是否提供所寻求的权利？许可能否转让？上游和下游–供应协议？他们是否确定了被收购方？被收购方是否有义务向客户提供赔偿？41©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPPhase II: Freedom to Operate Analysis第二阶段：自由使用权分析Assess validity of third-party patents identified during search to target’s technology–Awareness of patent?–Opinion of counsel?–License to practice in field of use?对就被收购方技术进行检索过程中所确定的第三方专利的有效性进行评估–是否知道专利的存在？–法律顾问的意见？–进行许可，以在使用领域实施？42©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP21
Results: The End Game最终结果Transaction Representations and Warranties–Title, Ownership, Freedom to transfer (standard)–Representation of non-infringement by others (less standard)–Representation of non-infringement of third party IP (controversial)–Representation of validity of IP (rare)–Basis of representation –absolute or best knowledge–Risk management –remedies for breach关于交易的表述和保证–权利、所有权、转让自由（标准）–关于未被其他人侵权的陈述（大多情况）–关于未侵犯第三方知识产权的陈述（有争议）–关于知识产权有效性的陈述（极少情况）–陈述依据－保证正确或基于所知道的所有情况–风险管理－违约救济43©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPResults: The End Game最终结果Exceptions to representations and warranties in schedules to agreement–Consequences of failure to list (Intentional? Negligent?)Effect of listing (on notice)Accuracy and completeness of schedules协议附录中表述和保证的例外情形–未能列举（有意或疏忽？）的后果列举的影响（通知）附录的准确性和完整性44©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP22
Results: The End Game最终结果–Allocating the IP risk in agreementAdjustment of purchase priceEscrow or contingent payment of portion of priceIndemnitiesInsurance–在协议中分配知识产权风险购买价格的调整部分价格的第三方支付或或有条件性支付赔偿保险45©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPWhat Should Target Do?被收购方应做些什么？Cooperatebut be wary of disclosing privileged information–Respond fully to requests for information –But know when to say “no”–Confidentiality Agreement for Basic Information–Common Interest Agreement to protect privilegeIdentical legal interests?合作，但在披露有特权的资料时应保持警惕–充分配合提供所要求的资料–但须知道什么时候该说“不”–就基本资料签署保密协议–签署共同利益协议，以保护特权相同的法律利益46©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP23
What Should Target Do?被收购方应做些什么？Beprepared–Investor/suitor will ask hard questions做好充分准备–投资者/起诉人会提出很尖锐的问题47©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPWhat Should Target Do?被收购方应做些什么？Be aware of the issues–Search to identify third party issues–Develop an action plan to deal with those issues–Review and execute appropriate confidentiality agreements–Understand bases for representations & warranties –Allocate risks through price adjustments or indemnities认识到以下问题–进行检索，以确认第三方的问题–制定行动计划，以处理这些问题–审查并执行适当的保密协议–了解陈述及保证的依据–通过价格调整或赔偿对风险进行分配48©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP24
Conclusions结论Thorough and fast assessment of risks in dealMulti-phase approach to due diligence provides a roadmap to thoroughly but efficiently evaluate risksGood “housekeeping” can avert issues对交易所涉及的风险进行全面、快速评估采取多阶段方法进行尽职调查，可对风险进行全面、有效的评估良好的“内务管理”可以规避问题49©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPRepresentative Finnegan Due Diligence飞翰具有代表性的尽职调查Strategic alliance in medical diagnosticsPatent pooling in standards arenaAcquisition of renewable energy technologyLeveraging patents for digital compression technologyExtensive acquisition/merger/licensing in pharmaceutical area Analysis of licensing strategy and enforcement of rights through litigation 医疗诊断领域的战略联盟标准领域的专利池可再生能源技术的收购充分利用数字压缩领域技术专利制药领域的多项收购/兼并/许可许可策略分析以及通过诉讼执行相关权利50©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP25
Thank You!谢谢NinglSherry Wu 吴晓群ing Wang 王宁玲@@©2009 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP26
