Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Perhaps signaling an interest in revisiting the doctrine in its entirety, in April 2010, the Federal Circuit asked for briefing on six questions regarding the defense of inequitable conduct (“IC”) to patent infringement. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2010 WL 1655391 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2010). To date, the court has received more than 30 briefs from more than 100 amici curiae, presenting diverse and interesting proposals for the court's consideration. Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 9, 2010.
The IC defense finds its roots in a trilogy of older Supreme Court cases including Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945). Presently, IC requires clear and convincing evidence that a person with a duty of candor owed to the PTO: 1) misrepresented (or failed to disclose) material information with 2) an intent to deceive or mislead. If sufficient materiality and intent are found, the court balances the equities to determine whether the conduct was sufficiently egregious to declare the subject patent(s) unenforceable.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Executives have access to some of the company's most sensitive information, and they're increasingly being targeted by hackers looking to steal company secrets or to perpetrate cybercrimes.