Litigating Inequitable Conduct after Therasense and the AIA
|
|
- Katherine Allyson Bruce
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Litigating Inequitable Conduct after Therasense and the AIA AIPLA Chemical Patent Practice Roadshow June 20, 2013 Lisa A. Dolak Syracuse University College of Law
2 Agenda New judicial standards for pleading and proving inequitable conduct Examples: the new standards in operation Summary of lessons from the cases Overview of supplemental examination Options for patent owners after Therasense and the AIA
3 New Judicial Standards: Proving Inequitable Conduct Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (2011) (en banc): Challenger must prove that the applicant misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the [USPTO] Revised materiality and intent standards
4 Therasense (cont d) Materiality either: But-for material ( the [USPTO] would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed or correct information), OR Intent: Affirmative egregious misconduct Specific intent to deceive is required Gross negligence and should have known do not suffice Deliberate decision to withhold required No sliding scale : a district court may not infer intent solely from materiality
5 New Judicial Standards: Pleading Inequitable Conduct Exergen v. Wal-Mart Stores, 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009): [FRCP] 9(b) requires identification of the specific who, what, when, where, and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the [USPTO]
6 New Standards in Operation: Materiality Prior art that anticipates or renders obvious is but-for material American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Compare: undisclosed product is not material, even if qualifies as on-sale prior art, where it would not render the asserted claims obvious in view of the other cited prior art August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
7 New Standards in Operation: Materiality Applicant s failure to update a Petition to Make Special (to alert the USPTO that he was no longer under an obligation to manufacture, as previously alleged) obviously fails the but-for materiality standard and is not the type of unequivocal act, such as the filing of an unmistakably false affidavit, that would rise to the level of affirmative egregious misconduct Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
8 New Standards in Operation: Materiality Existence of litigation regarding a parent patent was not material to the prosecution of a continuation where the litigation did not involve allegations of invalidity or unenforceability Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
9 New Standards in Operation: Materiality Is filing a false declaration of small entity status affirmative egregious misconduct? Split panel declined to decide, where there was inadequate evidence of deceptive intent (although on its face, it appears that a false small entity declaration would fall within the definition of an unmistakably false affidavit, particularly since [it is a] sworn written declaration ) Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
10 New Standards in Operation: Deceptive Intent No deceptive intent where the inferences argued by [the patentee] are supported by evidence of record and are as reasonable as those inferences argued by [the challengers] Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Although the undisclosed references at issue were material, unenforceability was not established because deceptive intent was not the single most reasonable inference In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
11 New Standards in Operation: Deceptive Intent Deceptive intent found (and affirmed) based on the district court s specific findings that the witness s explanations for withholding the references at issue lacked credibility and evidence relating to the witness s knowledge of the relevant prior art, his selective citation of information to the USPTO, and inconsistencies between the witness s testimony and corporate documents regarding relevant experiments Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
12 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (the Who ) Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys fails to identify the who Also held insufficient: Exergen (Fed. Cir. 2009) Senju [Pharma], Kyorin, the inventors, and/or those acting on their behalf Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex, Inc., No SLR, 2013 WL (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2013) Abraham Zelkin or one or more of the other individuals listed as inventor XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 868 F.Supp.2d 376 (D. Del. 2012)
13 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (the Who ) Also held insufficient: [A], [B], [C], and/or other persons who were substantially involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application that led to the [patent at issue] Everlight Electronics Co. v. Nichia Corp., No. 12-cv-11758, 2012 WL (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2012) the named inventors [A], [B], and [C], and/or the attorneys and agents substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the [patent at issue] Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. GE, No. 12-cv-812, 2012 WL (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2012)
14 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (the Who ) Regarding the ever-popular and/or : The double and/or conjunction is too often used by lawyers trying to cover all bases. Its use often has unintended consequences. Through the and part of the conjunction, GE has managed to lump the named inventors, attorneys, and agents together under the title Applicants, and through the or portion GE has disjoined them; the result is that GE has failed to specifically identify who is guilty of misconduct.... Under this construction, GE certainly cannot be said to have made an allegation against a particular person. Mitsubishi (M.D. Fla., Mar. 12, 2012)
15 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (the Who ) For example, as to a pleading identifying as the who : Oracle International ; Kim Rejndrup, the 221 patent inventor ; Each attorney or agent who prepared or prosecuted the application ; Every other person who was substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application that became the 221 patent and who was associated with the inventor, with the assignee, or with anyone to whom there was an obligation to assign the application ; Every individual having a duty of disclosure under 37 C.F.R ; This Court finds that DrugLogic has adequately pled the who of the alleged material omission with respect to Mr. Rejndrup, but not with respect to any other person. In any amended complaint, DrugLogic may only name specific, identified individuals, including Mr. Rejndrup. Oracle Corp. v. DrugLogic, Inc., 807 F.Supp.2d 885 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
16 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (the What and Where ) What doesn t suffice? fail[ing] to identify which claims, and which limitation in those claims, the withheld references are relevant to, and where in those references the material information is found What does? Exergen (Fed. Cir. 2009) alleging that specified references render obvious all the asserted claims of the patent at issue because they disclose the use of CompuServe on the internet and were relevant to teaching the use of the Internet-like networking systems generally CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. CIVIX-DDI, LLC, Nos. 12 C 4968, 12 C 7091, 12 C 8632 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2013)
17 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (the Why and How ) What doesn t suffice? Generally stating that the withheld references are material and not cumulative to the information already of record fails to explain both why the withheld information is material and not cumulative, and how an examiner would have used this information in assessing the patentability of the claims What does? Exergen (Fed. Cir. 2009) [I]dentify[ing] the particular claim limitations, or combination of claim limitations, that are supposedly absent from the information of record Exergen (Fed. Cir. 2009)
18 New Standards in Operation: Pleading (Intent) What s required? [S]ufficient allegations of underlying facts from which a court may reasonably infer that a specific individual (1) knew of the withheld material information or of the falsity of the material misrepresentation, and (2) withheld or misrepresented this information with a specific intent to deceive the [USPTO] Merely alleging awareness of a reference does not allege knowledge of the allegedly material information contained in the reference Exergen (Fed. Cir. 2009) Issue: Has Therasense raised the bar for pleading intent?
19 Therasense: Impact on Pleading Compare: Hansen Mfg. Corp. v. Enduro Sys., Inc., No. CIV , 2011 WL (D.S.D., Nov. 14, 2011) (denying leave to amend because there [were] multiple reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the alleged facts) with CoStar (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2013) ( At the pleading stage,... the proponent of inequitable conduct need only plead sufficient facts that the court may reasonably infer knowledge and intent. CoStar s allegations meet that standard, insofar as they identify a plausible motive and opportunity for hiding the relevant references )
20 Therasense: Impact on Pleading Compare: Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 803 F.Supp.2d 409 (E.D. Va. 2011) ( a party must make an initial showing from which it may be plausibly inferred that... the intent to deceive is the single most likely explanation for the nondisclosure ) with Wyeth Holdings Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc., No LPS-CJB, 2012 WL (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2012) ( to adequately plead the intent prong of an inequitable conduct defense, the claimant need only allege facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that the patent applicant made a deliberate decision to deceive the [USPTO] )
21 Therasense: Impact on Pleading Magistrate Judge Burke in Wyeth: The Therasense single most reasonable inference requirement is an evidentiary standard; all of the circumstances are not considered at the pleading stage Exergen itself distinguished between the pleading stage (where an inference of deceptive intent must be reasonable ) and the proving stage (where deceptive intent must be the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence ) In Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm n, 655 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit said [a] charge of inequitable conduct... will survive a motion to dismiss only if the plaintiff s complaint recites facts from which the court may reasonably infer that a specific individual both knew of invalidating information... and withheld that information with a specific intent to deceive the [USPTO]
22 Therasense: Impact on Pleading Issue awaits definitive CAFC consideration But, where an equal or more reasonable inference (other than deceptive intent) can be drawn at the pleading stage, dismissal is appropriate See, e.g., Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:11- cv-719-j-37tem, 2013 WL (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2013) (dismissing an inequitable conduct charge based on alleged burying because an equally if not more reasonable inference is that [the patentee] aimed to insulate itself from such claims by over-disclosing references )
23 Summary: What the Cases Teach Withheld information that invalidates is but-for material USPTO-required information may nonetheless not be material The intent element is increasingly determinative (law regarding materiality will now develop more slowly)
24 Summary: What the Cases Teach The courts are carefully scrutinizing proffered intent evidence Findings based significantly on the materiality of the withheld or misrepresented information will be vulnerable on appeal Allegations that inequitable conduct was committed by entities, persons involved in the prosecution, or inventors and/or attorneys are unlikely to be held sufficient The precise interplay between Therasense and Exergen on pleading deceptive intent is unresolved
25 Supplemental Examination One of the new AIA-created post-grant proceedings Effective September 16, 2012 Applies to patents issued before, on, or after that date Patent owner can request consider[ation], reconsider[ation], or correct[ion of] information believed to be relevant to the patent 25
26 Supplemental Examination USPTO has 3 months to evaluate whether the information presented... raises a substantial new question of patentability If a substantial new question, ex parte reexamination is ordered No patent owner s statement SE-related reexamination is not limited to patents and printed publications Print prior art Non-print prior art (e.g., sales and uses) Non-prior art information (e.g., test data, misinformation about inventorship, office actions in co-pending applications, unjustified claims to small entity status) 26
27 Supplemental Examination Effect : A patent shall not be held unenforceable on the basis of conduct relating to information that had not been considered, was inadequately considered, or was incorrect in a prior examination of the patent if the information was considered, reconsidered, or corrected during a supplemental examination of the patent. 27
28 Supplemental Examination Except that the courts can entertain the defense if: The patent owner s requested supplemental examination and any resulting reexamination weren t concluded before the patent owner sued The patent challenger pled the inequitable conduct at issue (with particularity) in a civil action or Paragraph IV certification before the patent owner filed a supplemental examination request 28
29 Supplemental Examination Fraud provision: If the Director becomes aware... that a material fraud on the Office may have been committed in connection with the patent that is the subject of the supplemental examination, then in addition to any other actions the Director is authorized to take, including the cancellation of any claims found to be invalid..., the Director shall also refer the matter to the Attorney General for such further action as the Attorney General may deem appropriate. Any such referral shall be treated as confidential, shall not be included in the file of the patent, and shall not be disclosed to the public unless the United States charges a person with a criminal offense in connection with such referral. 29
30 Patent Owner Options: Introduction Evidentiary significance of reexamination/reissue has been altered by Therasense: Pre-Therasense: grant of reexam/rejection could serve as evidence of materiality Post-Therasense: reexam/reissue can be used to show non-materiality
31 Patent Owner Options: Introduction Also: In re Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that reissue is available to add a dependent claim or claims) Tanaka provides an avenue into reissue to obtain consideration of (certain) information via an IDS Plus, no more requirement for averment that the error occurred without any deceptive intention
32 Patent Owner Options: Choosing a Post-Grant Cure Does it make sense to litigate under Therasense? Or, is true immunity the goal? How material is the information at issue? Are there bad facts?
33 Patent Owner Options: Choosing a Post-Grant Cure What (type of) information needs to be considered? Standards: Mere SNQ will trigger reexam in SE Prima facie unpatentability required for rejection (e.g., in reissue) Is it too late to file supplemental examination?
34 Patent Owner Options: Choosing a Post-Grant Cure Risk of reopening prosecution in reissue Need for speed (SE/reexam vs. reissue) Relative cost (SE/reexam vs. reissue) Risks of characterizing / commenting on information
35 When to Choose SE To obtain speedy consideration of marginally relevant information found late in prosecution If reexam likely, though, must consider reexam vs. continuation As part of a two-stage reissue-first strategy Where SE is the only option High-risk or actual inequitable conduct situations If the nature of the information at issue dictates
36 Questions? Comments?
US Patent Prosecution Duty to Disclose
July 12, 2016 Terri Shieh-Newton, Member Therasense v. Becton Dickinson & Co., (Fed. Cir. en banc May 25, 2011) Federal Circuit en banc established new standards for establishing both 10 materiality and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al v. Hitachi Ltd et al Doc. 101 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, METCO BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
More informationInequitable Conduct Judicial Developments
Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Duke Patent Law Institute May 16, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared
More informationBest Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct
PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
More informationInequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose. Tonya Drake March 2, 2010
Inequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose Tonya Drake March 2, 2010 Inequitable conduct Defense to patent infringement A finding of inequitable conduct will render a patent unenforceable Claims may
More informationGlobal IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up
Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up 1 Panelist Dr. Rouget F. (Ric) Henschel, Partner, Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice, and Co-Chair, Life Sciences Industry Team, Foley & Lardner Sven
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationAfinding of inequitable conduct can have drastic
Afinding of inequitable conduct can have drastic consequences for a patent holder. Unlike invalidity, which affects only asserted patent claims, inequitable conduct renders an entire patent (and potentially
More informationInternational Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now
International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now Shawn Gorman and Christopher Swickhamer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. I. Introduction The Plague of Inequitable Conduct Allegations
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIXHAM SOLUTIONS LTD., Plaintiff, v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jcs ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-000-blf ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
More information4:12-cv GAD-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 11/02/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 900 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 11/02/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 900 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and EMCORE CORPORATION, Civil
More informationAmerica Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011
America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor
More information11th Annual Patent Law Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at
More informationIDS PRACTICE AFTER THERASENSE AND THE AIA: DECOUPLING THE LINK BETWEEN INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Northeastern University From the SelectedWorks of Arpita Bhattacharyya October 31, 2012 IDS PRACTICE AFTER THERASENSE AND THE AIA: DECOUPLING THE LINK BETWEEN INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
More informationFederal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct
Federal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct SUMMARY On May 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Therasense, Inc.
More informationThese materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of
May 14, 2013 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These
More information2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative
2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION 3D MEDICAL IMAGING SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VISAGE IMAGING, INC., and PRO MEDICUS LIMITED, Defendants, v.
More informationInequitable Conduct as a Defense to Patent Infringement: What will the Effect of the Federal Circuit s Decision in Therasense, Inc. Have?
Seton Hall University erepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 5-1-2013 Inequitable Conduct as a Defense to Patent Infringement: What will the Effect of the Federal Circuit
More informationCase 3:11-cv RBD-JBT Document 36 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 31 PageID 157
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-JBT Document 36 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 31 PageID 157 PARKERVISION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:11-cv-719-RBD-JBT
More informationPart IV: Supplemental Examination
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part IV: Supplemental Examination Presented By: Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March 27, 2012 April
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationDUTY OF DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Abraham J. Rosner Sughrue Mion, PLLC In addition to the defenses of non-infringement and invalidity, an alleged infringer may
More informationRunaway Jurisprudence: Has the But For Test for Proving Inequitable Conduct in Patent Cases Gone Awry, Gone Rogue, or Gone Quiet?
Runaway Jurisprudence: Has the But For Test for Proving Inequitable Conduct in Patent Cases Gone Awry, Gone Rogue, or Gone Quiet? Gino Cheng Winston & Strawn LLP On May 25, 2011, the Federal Circuit set
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck What is included in Post-Grant Reform in the U.S.? Some current procedures are modified and some new ones
More informationIDS Practice After Therasense and the AIA: Decoupling the Link Between Information Disclosure and Inequitable Conduct
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 29 Issue 4 Article 2 5-23-2013 IDS Practice After Therasense and the AIA: Decoupling the Link Between Information Disclosure and Inequitable Conduct Arpita
More informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationCOMMENT THE EXERGEN AND THERASENSE EFFECTS
COMMENT THE EXERGEN AND THERASENSE EFFECTS Robert D. Swanson* This Comment empirically investigates the doctrine of inequitable conduct in patent law. Inequitable conduct is a defense to patent infringement
More informationInequitable Conduct: Evolution and Considerations
Inequitable Conduct: Evolution and Considerations By Kirstin Stoll-DeBell and Rachel Hammond Inequitable conduct is a breach of a patent applicant's, or attorney s, duty of candor and good faith during
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald Gibbs LeClairRyan December 2011 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationCase 1:08-cv LPS Document 559 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 8401
Case 1:08-cv-00862-LPS Document 559 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 8401 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 08-862-LPS
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file
More informationMonitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct
Monitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct Intellectual Property Owners Association September 11, 2007, New York, New York By Harry I. Moatz Director of Enrollment
More informationNavigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018
Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018 Elizabeth A Doherty, PhD 925.231.1991 elizabeth.doherty@mcneillbaur.com Amelia Feulner
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationCase 2:07-cv APG-PAL Document 461 Filed 11/20/12 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-00-APG-PAL Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 Thomas M. Melsheimer (melsheimer@fr.com) (admitted pro hac vice) (TX # 0) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Main Street, Suite 000 Dallas, TX 0 Telephone: () -00
More informationNo IN THE AVENTIS PHARMA S.A. AND AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC., AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
No. 08-937 OFFICE 0~: "TPIE CLER?: ::.::URREME COURq: IN THE AVENTIS PHARMA S.A. AND AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC., V. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., On Petition For
More informationUSPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Janet.Gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734 Three Pillars of the AIA 11/30/2011 2 Speed Prioritized examination
More informationCORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS
CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS 2012 IP Summer Seminar Peter Corless Partner pcorless@edwardswildman.com July 2012 2012 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Types of Correction Traditional
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,
Case: 16-1346 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2016-1346 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationPresentation to SDIPLA
Presentation to SDIPLA Anatomy of an IPR Trial by Andrea G. Reister Chair, Patent Office and Advisory Practice Covington & Burling LLP February 20, 2014 Outline 1. Overview 2. Preliminary Phase 3. Decision
More informationCorrection of Patents
Correction of Patents Seema Mehta Kelly McKinney November 9, 2011 Overview: Three Options Certificate of Correction Reissue Reexamination in view of the America Invents Act (AIA) Certificate of Correction
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationTHE U.S. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AS APPLIED TO U.S. AND FOREIGN OFFICE ACTIONS
THE U.S. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AS APPLIED TO U.S. AND FOREIGN OFFICE ACTIONS October 9, 2009 Recent case law establishes that patentees are obligated to bring many Office Actions issued in related U.S. Patent
More information18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter Article
18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 269 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter 2010 Article RESOLVING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT CLAIMS ACCORDING TO KINGSDOWN Brett J. Thompsen a1 Copyright (c) 2010 Intellectual
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More informationBringing Equity Back to the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine?
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 27 Issue 4 Annual Review 2012 Article 8 6-1-2012 Bringing Equity Back to the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine? Priscilla G. Taylor Follow this and additional works at:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant. Counter Claimant, Counter Defendant.
Case :-cv-00-dms-wvg Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 IPDEV CO., v. AMERANTH, INC., AMERANTH, INC., v. IPDEV CO., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant.
More information, -1512, -1513, -1514, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT THERASENSE, INC. (now known as Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and ABBOTT LABORATORIES, v. Plaintiff-Appellants,
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationMANAGING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT BY LEGISLATION
MANAGING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT BY LEGISLATION AND/OR REGULATION * Alan J. Kasper ** I. Introduction... 95 A. Development of Inequitable Conduct in the Federal Circuit... 96 B. Consideration of Inequitable
More informationTHE MUDDY METAPHYSICS OF INVENTORSHIP: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
THE MUDDY METAPHYSICS OF INVENTORSHIP: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW JUNE 28, 2016 J. PETER FASSE 1 Overview Statutory Basis Court Decisions Who is (and is not) an inventor? Why do we care? How to Determine Inventorship
More information2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo
2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo Law360, New York (January 18, 2017, 12:35 PM EST) This article analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 347 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 347 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER
Case 5:12-cv-05162-SOH Document 146 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2456 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationCase 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418 PARKERVISION, INC., vs. Plaintiff, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
More informationCase 2:07-cv PD Document 152 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:07-cv-02852-PD Document 152 Filed 07/06/2009 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC., : Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationUPDATE ON CULPABLE MENTAL STATES AND RELATED ETHICAL AND PRIVILEGE IMPLICATIONS IN FEDERAL CIVIL LITIGATION. April 23, 2010
UPDATE ON CULPABLE MENTAL STATES AND RELATED ETHICAL AND PRIVILEGE IMPLICATIONS IN FEDERAL CIVIL LITIGATION April 23, 2010 David G. Barker and Scott C. Sandberg 1 The culpable mental state required for
More informationInter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation
Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany
More informationChapter 2000 Duty of Disclosure
Chapter 2000 Duty of Disclosure 2000 [Reserved] 2000.01 Introduction 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith 2001.01 Who Has Duty To Disclose 2001.02 [Reserved] 2001.03 To Whom Duty of Disclosure
More informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious
More informationCase 9:06-cv RHC Document 29 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Case 9:06-cv-0055-RHC Document 9 Filed /06/006 Page of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION BLACKBOARD, INC. Plaintiff, v. DESIRELEARN, INC, Defendant.
More informationAMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine
AMERICA INVENTS ACT Changes to Patent Law Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine American Invents Act of 2011 Enacted on September 16, 2011 Effective date for most provisions was September
More informationWilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future
Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future June 21, 2017 David Cavanaugh, Partner, Christopher Noyes, Partner, Attorney Advertising Speakers David Cavanaugh Partner Christopher Noyes
More informationPATENT CASE LAW UPDATE
PATENT CASE LAW UPDATE Intellectual Property Owners Association 40 th Annual Meeting September 9, 2012 Panel Members: Paul Berghoff, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP Prof. Dennis Crouch, University
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :0-cv-000-KJD-LRL Document Filed 0//0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 THE CUPCAKERY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA BALLUS, et al., Defendants. Case No. :0-CV-00-KJD-LRL ORDER
More informationCase3:14-cv MEJ Document39 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SERENA KWAN, Plaintiff, v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-mej ORDER RE: MOTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 14-448-GMS I. INTRODUCTION MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Inventor
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JOHN LARRY SANDERS AND SPECIALTY FERTILIZER PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY,
More informationAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PATENT LAW S INEQUITABLE CONDUCT DOCTRINE
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PATENT LAW S INEQUITABLE CONDUCT DOCTRINE Thomas F. Cotter * In recent years, patent law s inequitable conduct doctrine has attracted considerable attention from judges, legislators,
More informationProfessional Responsibility for IP Practitioners OED s Role and Responsibilities in Handling Grievances and Disciplinary Matters Against Practitioners
Professional Responsibility for IP Practitioners OED s Role and Responsibilities in Handling Grievances and Disciplinary Matters Against Practitioners William R. Covey Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment
More informationAccelerated Examination. Presented by Hans Troesch, Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. March 2, 2010
Accelerated Examination Presented by Hans Troesch, Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. March 2, 2010 Overview The Basics Petition for accelerated examination Pre-examination search Examination Support Document
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MARICAL INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) 1:14-cv-00366-JDL ) COOKE AQUACULTURE INC., et al., ) ) Defendants ) DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationAmerica Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011
More informationAIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP
AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationPatent Office Contested Proceedings and the Duty of Candor
Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 22 Issue 1 Article 2 August 2014 Patent Office Contested Proceedings and the Duty of Candor Lisa A. Dolak Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationPatent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview
Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent
More informationCase 1:09-cv SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-09790-SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) BRIESE LICHTTENCHNIK VERTRIEBS ) No. 09 Civ. 9790 GmbH, and HANS-WERNER BRIESE,
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More informationUnited States District Court District of Massachusetts
United States District Court District of Massachusetts MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SANDOZ INC., Plaintiffs, v. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD., Defendants.
More informationInjunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants
Injunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants AIPLA 2014 Spring Meeting Colin G. Sandercock* * These slides have been prepared for the AIPLA 2014 Spring
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationPaper No Filed: February 26, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 7 571-272-7822 Filed: February 26, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-1194-MSS-TGW FUJIFILM
More informationPatent Reform Act of 2007
July 2007 Patent Reform Act of 2007 By Cynthia Lopez Beverage Intellectual Property Bulletin, July 27, 2007 On July 18, 2007 and July 20, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , GFI, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FRANKLIN CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1268, -1288 GFI, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FRANKLIN CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant, and WASHINGTON FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CO., and ASTRO
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationCase 0:05-cv KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2012 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:05-cv-61225-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2012 Page 1 of 9 COBRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida corporation, vs. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, BCNY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a New York
More informationJune 29, 2011 Submitted by: Julie P. Samuels Staff Attorney Michael Barclay, Reg. No. 32,553 Fellow Electronic Frontier Foundation
To: Kenneth M. Schor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy To: reexamimprovementcomments@uspto.gov Docket No: PTO-P-2011-0018 Comments
More informationU.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act
U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act August 15, 2011 John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson What s New in 2011? Patent Law Reform is high on Congressional agenda A desire to legislate Bipartisan Patent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION; and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, vs. HOSPIRA, INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. Case No.:1-cv-1-H-RBB ORDER: (1)
More informationFenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice
Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L
More information