Susan Glovsky Quoted in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Article

October 5, 2021

An article by Eric T. Berkman titled, “Patent infringement claim against Fitbit to proceed,” appeared in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on September 30, and reported on a Supreme Court ruling this summer that infringement claims brought against a manufacturer of wearable fitness technology can proceed despite the asserted patents being directed to “abstract ideas.”

Here are quotes from Susan Glovsky, Principal at Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds - Susan G. L. Glovsky of Boston, who handles patent infringement cases, downplayed any notions that the ruling would serve as a “broad brush case” against defendants filing motions to dismiss.
 

Specifically, Glovsky said, “when a defendant files a motion to dismiss on §101 grounds, it does not immediately have to answer the complaint. Meanwhile, the case sits there until the judge decides the motion.”

“The case could sit for a year or two before that happens,” she said. “Damages may be accruing, but a lot of cases probably settle while that motion to dismiss is sitting there.”

Ultimately, Glovsky said, while the ruling may make some defendants think twice about spending money on a motion to dismiss, “a lot more has to happen for the pendulum to swing in that direction because there are still too many advantages to filing the motion.”

Click Here to read the full article.

About

October 5, 2021

An article by Eric T. Berkman titled, “Patent infringement claim against Fitbit to proceed,” appeared in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on September 30, and reported on a Supreme Court ruling this summer that infringement claims brought against a manufacturer of wearable fitness technology can proceed despite the asserted patents being directed to “abstract ideas.”

Here are quotes from Susan Glovsky, Principal at Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds - Susan G. L. Glovsky of Boston, who handles patent infringement cases, downplayed any notions that the ruling would serve as a “broad brush case” against defendants filing motions to dismiss.
 

Specifically, Glovsky said, “when a defendant files a motion to dismiss on §101 grounds, it does not immediately have to answer the complaint. Meanwhile, the case sits there until the judge decides the motion.”

“The case could sit for a year or two before that happens,” she said. “Damages may be accruing, but a lot of cases probably settle while that motion to dismiss is sitting there.”

Ultimately, Glovsky said, while the ruling may make some defendants think twice about spending money on a motion to dismiss, “a lot more has to happen for the pendulum to swing in that direction because there are still too many advantages to filing the motion.”

Click Here to read the full article.

Back to the Top