Filewrapper-old

Legitimate Advocacy and Genuine Misrepresentation of Material Facts
August 25, 2014

    The Federal Circuit has issued a decision inApotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., upholding a district court's finding that Apotex's U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556 ("the '556 patent") is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Dr. Sherman, founder and chairman of Apotex, wrote the '556 patent application and is its sole inventor. The '556 is based on Canadian application filed on April 5, 2000........ Read More


    New and Useful - January 23, 2013
    January 23, 2013

      · In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks&mdas....... Read More


      Federal Circuit Establishes New Standard for Inequitable Conduct
      June 15, 2011

        On May 25, 2011 the Federal Circuit released its en banc decision in Theresense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. , in which the Court articulated the appropriate standard for inequitable conduct before the PTO. The majority wrote, “[t]his court now tightens the standards for finding both intent and materiality in order to redirect a doctrine that has been overused to the detriment of the public.” ....... Read More


        Federal Circuit to consider overhaul of inequitable conduct standards en banc
        April 26, 2010

          In an order today, the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. The order indicates the court will be reconsidering its precedent on virtually the entire gamut of issues relating to inequitable conduct. Specifically, the questions presented are:Should the materiality-intent-balancing framework for inequitable conduct be modified or replaced?If so, how? In parti....... Read More


          Inequitable Conduct Found in False Statements and Deception
          March 21, 2007

            In a case before the Federal Circuit, the District Court's conclusion that Cantor's patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct was affirmed. The matter before the Court involved a patent for a method and system for trading financial instruments. Specifically, Cantor developed a system that would automate the trading process and avoid the use of "open outcry" and "trade capture processes." However, duri....... Read More


            Dippin' Dots: brought to you by inequitable conduct, but not an antitrust violation
            February 09, 2007

              What do Dippin' Dots, the little beads of ice cream sold at fairs, stadiums, and malls, have to do with patent and antitrust law? For the Federal Circuit, they presented the "close case" where a patent holder can be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent but is not liable for a Walker Process antitrust claim by an infringement defendant. This is possib....... Read More


              Federal jury finds H.264 video compression standard does not infringe patent
              January 30, 2007

                A federal jury in San Diego recently found that Broadcom, a company that produces chips used in everything from mobile phones to next-generation DVD players, does not infringe two patents held by Qualcomm on video compression technology. Why is this finding important? Qualcomm asserted its patents covered the H.264 video compression standard, which is the standard used by everything from DirecTV and Dish Network....... Read More


                Working until the end of the year, Federal Circuit addresses a Law School Exam Type Case
                December 26, 2006

                  The Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of Indiana decision that generic drug makers IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Dr. Reddy's Labratories, Ltd. (DRL) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. infringed Eli Lilly and Company's (Lilly) U.S. Patent no. 5,229,382. The '382 Patent claims chemical compound olanzapine and the use of the compound to treat schizophrenia. The infringers attempted to show that the '382 was....... Read More


                  Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace ? Failure to Raise Verdict Inconsistency Defeats Appeal
                  December 14, 2006

                    In L&W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc. and Steven W. Sheridan ("Shertech"), the Court affirmed in part the decision of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holding claim 7 valid and claim 10 invalid of Shertech's '264 patent, and affirming the portion of the judgment holding that the '264 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. At issue was a patent ("the '265 patent") for an aut....... Read More


                    Enablement standard for prior art less stringent than enablement standard for patents
                    November 21, 2006

                      The Federal Circuit, in Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., discussed the requirements for a prior art reference to be enabled, and thus anticipate a patent. Aventis is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814, covering the use of the compound riluzole to treat ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Impax wanted to produce a generic version of riluzole,so it filed an abbreviated new dru....... Read More


                        Newer Posts Older Posts  

                      Purpose

                      The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                      Disclaimer

                      McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                      Connect with MVS

                      Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                      Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                      Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                        I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.