Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit decision in Belcher Pharm. v. Hospira, Inc., 11 F.4th 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021), confirms important details regarding the duty of candor and good faith when interacting with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). For example, withholding information that is material to the patentability of a pending claim of a patent application during prosecution can cause a resultant patent to be found unenforceable. In view of the Belcher decision, the USPTO released a Notice on July 29, 2022 that provides additional guidance on the duty of candor and good faith. Practitioners and non-practitioners that are associated with the examination of patents and patent applications should be vigilant about information that may be material to patentability to avoid having an issued patent be deemed unenforceable.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Beyond Language: How Multimodal AI Sees the Bigger Picture
By Matthew R. Carey
The possibilities for patenting innovative applications of multimodal models across industries are endless.
Protecting Technology-Assisted Works and Inventions: Where Does AI Begin?
By Ed Lanquist, Jr. and Dominic Rota
Just like any new technology, efforts to protect and enforce intellectual property on AI-based technologies are likely to be hampered by a lack of both a unified governing framework and a common understanding of the technology.
Content-Licensing Payment Dispute Turns On Existence of Fiduciary Relationship
By Stan Soocher
A recent New York federal court decision in a dispute between a broker that sublicenses program content and a broadcaster that sublicensed content from the broker considered the interaction of contract language and extra-contractual elements of the parties’ relationship to determine whether a fiduciary relationship existed.
Federal Judge Blasts Patent Trolls
By Rob Maier
A recent order from Chief Judge Colm Connolly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware may serve as a warning for “patent trolls” — the derogatory term used to describe companies whose sole function is to acquire and then assert patents, often in cases that are questionable on the merits — against filing cases in Delaware going forward.