High Reversal Rate of Markman Decisions Weakens their Intended Value
December 01, 2003
In <i>Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,</i> 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the Supreme Court held that patent claim construction is an issue of law to be decided exclusively by the court rather than the jury. As a result, district court judges now routinely conduct what is referred to as pretrial <i>Markman</i> hearings in order to resolve disputes about the meaning of words or phrases in patent claims. Prior to <i>Markman,</i> claim construction took place at trial and was decided by the judge or the jury with appropriate instructions from the court.
Federal Circuit Holds that Importing Data is Not Patent Infringement
December 01, 2003
It is no secret that more than a few biotech and pharmaceutical companies perform drug discovery offshore and then import the results. Holders of U.S. patents on drug discovery tools (such as molecular screening methods) have wondered for years whether data or drugs resulting from such activities constitute a "product made" under The Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988 (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") — in a setback to the U.S. drug discovery industry — has now held that they do not. <i>See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,</i> 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Federal Circuit Holds that Importing Data is Not Patent Infringement
November 01, 2003
It is no secret that more than a few biotech and pharmaceutical companies perform drug discovery offshore and then import the results. Holders of U.S. patents on drug discovery tools (such as molecular screening methods) have wondered for years whether data or drugs resulting from such activities constitute a "product made" under The Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988 (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") — in a setback to the U.S. drug discovery industry — has now held that they do not. <i>See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,</i> 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
IP News
November 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Federal Circuit Decides <i>Festo</i> on Remand from Supreme Court
November 01, 2003
On September 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit decided <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,</i> 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which was on remand from the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit summarized the current law on prosecution history estoppel and shed some light on the applicability of the Supreme Court's criteria for rebutting the presumption of total surrender that results when a narrowing amendment is made for reasons substantially related to patentability. The Federal Circuit's decision appears to be directed toward a very limited exception to the total surrender presumption, and the minority opinions illustrate that there is tension within the Federal Circuit regarding the approach to barring equivalents.
New Test Determines Primarily Geographically Misdescriptive Marks
November 01, 2003
In a decision interpreting Section 2(e)(3) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3)), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted a new three-part test to be used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in determining whether a trademark is "primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive" ("misdescriptive"). <i>In re California Innovations, Inc.,</i> 329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Federal Circuit held that the amendments to the Lanham Act resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) changed the rules under which the PTO may deny registration to misdescriptive marks.
The Creditor in Possession
November 01, 2003
A hallmark of United States bankruptcy law has been the principle that a debtor should be provided with an opportunity to use the bankruptcy to get a "fresh start." That principle, initially applicable to individuals, was carried forward as an underlying premise of business reorganizations and coupled with the belief that reorganizations preserved going concern values. The value of reorganization as compared with liquidation in cases of major business failures was first realized in connection with the reorganization of railroads during the latter part of the 19th century that continued into the 20th century. In the context of the current economic environment, the underlying premise of railroad reorganizations of preserving going concern value may no longer be viable.
