-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Patrick J. Halloran,… on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Kevin E Noonan on Shire Development, LLC et al.… Qualities of a Good… on Edwards Life Sciences AG et al… Archives
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- Contributory Infringement
- Covered Business Method Reviews
- Damages
- Derivation of Invention
- Design Patents
- Diligence
- Disclaimers
- Discovery
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Double Patenting
- Enablement
- Equitable estoppel
- Expert Testimony
- False Marking
- Functional limitations
- Generics / ANDA
- Importation
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement to Infringe
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Inherency
- Injunction
- Inter Parties Review (IPR)
- Interference
- International Trade Commission
- Inventorship
- IPR
- Issue Preclusion
- Jurisdiction
- Laches
- Licensing
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Means-plus-function
- Method claims
- Negative Limitations
- Obviousness
- Obviousness-Teaching Away
- On-Sale Bar
- Patent Exhaustion
- Patent Marking
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentability
- Post-grant review
- Preamble
- Priority
- Privilege
- Procedural Issues
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unjust enrichment
- Willfullness
- Written description
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Expert Testimony Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Inequitable Conduct Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Patentability Preamble Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
Category Archives: Inequitable Conduct
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.
Docket No. 2016-1346 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH July 27, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct based on “adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO”, perhaps due in part to litigation misconduct, affirmed. Summary: Regneron appealed DC holding … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct
Leave a comment
U.S. Water Services, Inc., Roy Johnson v. Novozymes A/S et al.
Docket No. 2015-1950, -1967 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL December 15, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for invalidity (inherent anticipation) reversed; grant of SJ of no inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: U.S. Water (USW) appealed DC grant of SJ to Novozymes … Continue reading
The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps South, LLC
Docket No. 2015-1132, -1133 NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES February 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: This appeal follows an earlier decision remanding part of the case against Alps for trial (Ohio Willow Wood, FC 2013). OWW’s … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct
Leave a comment
TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Company, 3M Company
Docket No. 2014-1646 DYK, TARANTO, HUGHES February 10, 2016 Brief Summary: Findings of invalidity based on prior public use / obviousness, non-infringement, inequitable conduct, and trebeled damages for antitrust violations affirmed. Summary: Transweb sued for DJ of invalidity and non-infringement … Continue reading
Posted in Antitrust, Inequitable Conduct, Public Use, Willfullness
Leave a comment
Apotex, Inc. et al. v. UCB, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 2013-1674 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES August 15, 2014 Brief Summary: Patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by inventor and through his prosecuting attorney and expert witness, including an admission at trial that experiments described in the application were “made … Continue reading
Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inequitable Conduct
Leave a comment
American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Docket No. 2013-1061 PROST, NEWMAN (d), WALLACH September 26, 2014 Brief Summary: Inequitable conduct found where entirety of material information was not disclosed and DC determined “the only reasonable inference [was] that [he] knew the prior art was material to … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct
Leave a comment
The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps South, LLC
Docket No. 2012-1642, 2013-1024 DYK, BRYSON, REYNA November 15, 2013 Brief Summary: Collateral estoppel decision affirmed because no new issues raised; obviousness found where claimed numerical limits nothing other than “the exercise of routine skill”; improper SJ of no IE … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
