Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods. Inc.: Did the Court's Decision Change a Patentee's Right to a Jury Trial on the Issue of Inequitable Conduct?
In Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods. Inc., 451 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006), a non-unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('CAFC') issued an opinion affirming a district court's decision to conduct a bench trial on the defense of inequitable conduct, in spite of the patentee's request for a jury trial, prior to holding a jury trial on patent infringement, patent invalidity, and all other issues in the case. The dissenting member of the panel disagreed with the majority's decision that the patentee in this case did not have a right to a jury trial on the issue of inequitable conduct and suggested that the CAFC majority opinion in Agfa changed precedent established in a prior decision. In deciding Agfa, the majority analyzed the CAFC's decision in Gardco Mfg. v. Herst Lighting Co., 820 F.2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and determined that it applied to the case in Agfa. The majority also distinguished the CAFC decision in In re Lockwood, 50 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 1995), vacated, 515 U.S. 1182 (1995), as inapplicable to the equitable issue in question in Agfa. Conversely, the dissenting panel member argued that the CAFC's decision in Lockwood was indeed applicable to the issues in Agfa. This article reviews the above cases with the goal of determining if the CAFC decision in Agfa is indeed a departure from its previous jurisprudence concerning a patentee's right to a jury trial on the issue of equitable conduct.
Gardco Mfg. v. Herst Lighting Co.
The patentee, a light fixture manufacturer, applied for a patent on an indirect lighting fixture that utilized a reflector to reduce glare. The patentee and its attorney discussed the similarity of the patent claims with three existing products it sold, but did not disclose these products to the patent examiner. After the patent was issued, the patentee informed Gardco that its products infringed its patent. Gardco filed a complaint seeking a declaration that it did not infringe the patents and that the patents were invalid and unenforceable. The patentee answered the complaint, counterclaimed that Gardco infringed its patent, and requested a jury trial. Upon Gardco's motion, the court bifurcated the trial for the issue of inequitable conduct and conducted a bench trial on that issue. The district court found that the light fixtures that the patentee had not disclosed to the patent examiner would have been 'highly material' to the patent examiner's determination of the patentability of the claims and held the patent unenforceable. Among other issues, the patentee appealed the district court's decision to try the inequitable conduct issues without a jury trial. Recognizing the issue as a matter of first impression, the CAFC carefully analyzed the circumstance of the case and determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it conducted a bench trial of the inequitable conduct claim.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.