By Florian Mueller, the founder of ip fray
I want ip fray to be a reliably fast and reliably accurate source of information on developments in the Unified Patent Court and other key patent jurisdictions. That includes mentions of law firms and counsel. And I’m aware of the importance of teamwork as hardly anyone would litigate a large, complex patent case alone. So, if your firm or particular partners or associates are not mentioned, rest assured it’s unintentional, but I can’t ask everyone for input before a story goes live as speed is a key differentiator.
Some lawyers and marketing managers of law firms have recently reached out to provide additional information, which I added to LinkedIn posts and articles. It’s appreciated because it’s helpful, and it’s nice to see that the patent litigation community is interested in ip fray.
Here’s what you can do in everyone’s best interest (please share this with your firm’s marketing department):
1. Make sure you add all of your team members to the UPC’s case management system (CMS). Initially, it was possible to register only a single person. Now you can list entire teams. Please do.
2. If you bring new cases or enter your appearance on a defendant’s behalf, please feel free to drop me an email (the first part is just my two initials, the second part is the domain of this website). State the court (if it’s the UPC, please just use the acronym UPC), case number and the names of the parties, as I may have to run a full-text search over my email archive to find the information when I actually report on the case. If the case is not yet visible in the CMS, please state the patent(s)-in-suit as well. If you do not want me to report on the case until it shows up in the CMS or someone else discloses it to me, you can just voice that request.
3. It’s logistically impossible for me to attend all the hearings in person that I wish to report on. I’ve physically been to three UPC Local Divisions so far and will visit more, but I increasingly depend on reliable information from those who attend in whatever capacity. For instance, my reports on recent Munich trials (UPC and Munich I Regional Court) were based on information I obtained from others. I’m happy to hear from you if you’d like to talk to me right after any upcoming hearings, and sometimes I’ll reach out beforehand. For my email address, see item #2 above.
4. As I announced ten days ago, ip fray will become a subscription service on or before January 1, 2025, with a fair amount of content remaining available for free, either because it is sponsored or for the purpose of expanding the audience. Law firms will be offered special subscription packages that include firm profiles (with optional attorney profiles being available on top). ip fray articles will then link to such profiles, and each profile will contain links to select stories mentioning a firms or an attorney. Stay tuned for more information later this year.
As for my editorial priorities, ip fray is a cross-jurisdictional project. However, at the moment the UPC deserves particular attention as it is in the process of creating a whole new body of case law on a green field. That’s why any UPC case is potentially relevant now, while there are too many cases in all the other (older) jurisdictions that I could possibly take a look at them all. I do read new Federal Circuit decisions on a daily basis, I have various cases in U.S. district court and at the ITC on my watch lists, and I’m in the process of discussing sponsorships for the coverage of some other jurisdictions with local law firms. So this is not going to become a UPC-only website, but for the reasons I just mentioned, the percentage of UPC-related articles and LinkedIn posts is particularly high at the moment and probably will be for a couple of years.