Federal Circuit Heightens Standard for Inequitable Conduct By Marina Shvarts – Edited by Dorothy Du Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2011) (en banc) Slip Opinion The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which found U.S. Patent No. 5,820,551 (“the ’551 patent”) unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit heightened the ... Read More...
Archive for May, 2011
Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Obviousness Determinations by the PTO and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences By Abby Lauer – Edited by Dorothy Du In re Kao, 2010-1307 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011) Slip Opinion The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), which had rejected patent application 11/680,432 (“the ‘432 application”) for obviousness. The Federal Circuit also affirmed findings of obviousness by the Board regarding patent applications 12/167,859 ... Read More...
Federal Circuit Ruling in Favor of TiVo Against EchoStar Changes Test for Reviewing Contempt Orders By Dorothy Du – Edited by Matt Gelfand TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2011) (en banc) Slip Opinion The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which had found the appellants (collectively “EchoStar”) in contempt of two provisions of the court’s ... Read More...
Written by Mehdi Eddebbarh & Jack Burns Edited by Albert Wang Editorial Policy I. Introduction Patent law strives to stimulate innovation by awarding inventors a temporary monopoly over patented inventions. Antitrust law seeks to ensure efficient competition, in part by restricting monopolistic behavior. Perhaps the most scrutinized area of intersection between patent law and antitrust law is the proper treatment of “reverse payments,” also referred to as “pay-for-delay” settlements. Arkansas Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund v. Bayer AG, 625 F.3d ... Read More...
Written by Matt Gelfand Edited by Harry Zhou Editorial Policy A major criticism of the current copyright system is the overbreadth of the protections it affords, in terms of duration, works covered, and uses covered. With the Copyright Act of 1976 and subsequent international treaties and legislation, copyright has become quasi-permanent, and breadth-limiting formalities such as notice and registration requirements have been eliminated.[1] Virtually any use of the creative expressive content in a work is subject to control by a ... Read More...
