IP News
June 30, 2009
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Facing a Government Investigation: Common Insurance Issues
June 30, 2009
A policyholder that is mindful of a few issues that commonly arise in seeking coverage for a government investigation is in a much better position to obtain prompt payment of defense costs. This article addresses four common obstacles to obtaining prompt payment of defense costs.
Coverage for Spoliation Claims
June 30, 2009
The most controversial and far-reaching remedy for spoliation has been its recognition as an independent tort claim for either intentional or negligent destruction of evidence.
Disgorge This: The Restitution Defense Meets the Duty to Defend
June 30, 2009
The restitution defense to insurance coverage proceeds from a simple and logical premise. If I steal money from you and am forced to return it, there is no loss for my insurer to reimburse because I never had a right to the money in the first place. Life is rarely so simple, however, and insurers have asserted the restitution defense — with varying degrees of success — in a broad range of situations, some having little connection to the original premise.
Takeda v. Mylan: High-Cost Generic Drugs from Baseless Paragraph IV Certifications
June 29, 2009
In <i>Takeda v. Mylan</i>, the Federal Circuit revisited attorney fees in the context of an ANDA application. In doing so, the court provided additional guidance regarding factual circumstances that may support such awards and addressed several of the unanswered questions from the <i>Yamanouchi v. Danbury</i> opinion.
Patent Opinions, Willfulness and Inducement
June 29, 2009
Recent decisions have begun to fill in the gaps left by <i>In re Seagate Technology, LLC.</i> They suggest that a competent opinion is still an effective defense to a willfulness charge, and that a jury may consider a defendant's failure to obtain an opinion when determining the defendant's intent for purposes of willfulness and inducement. Also, legitimate trial defenses may be sufficient to establish that a defendant's actions at the time of infringement were not "objectively reckless.
Properly Name Inventors on Patents
June 29, 2009
A patent can be held invalid for incorrect inventorship, and co-inventorship of one, even relatively insignificant, claim can entitle a co-inventor to an ownership stake in every claim of the patent. Moreover, failure to join all co-inventors/owners as plaintiffs can prevent the real party in interest from enforcing a patent. A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, <i>Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.</i>, is illustrative of such risks
