Categories
Archives
Receive Email Updates
-
-
-
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021 
Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
-
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner
Pages
Archives
Category Archives: Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56
Inequitable Conduct Intent Prong Due to Litigation Misconduct
In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Merus N.V., Appeal No. 2016-1346 (Fed. Cir., July 27, 2017), a split three-judge panel of Prost, Wallach and Newman (Newman dissenting) affirmed the district court’s ruling that claim 1 of Regeneron’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,502,018 is … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56
Leave a comment
Millennium Pharm. v. Sandoz, Inc. – Revenge of the Chemical Judges
In the 2003 panel decision in Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., the panel rejected “the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition [of the claim element not found] in the prior art.” The claims were directed to a bioactive metabolite … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56
1 Comment
Supreme Court Rewrites the Law of Enhanced Damages
This is a guest post by Janice M. Mueller of Chisum Patent Academy. Today the Supreme Court rewrote the law of enhanced damages for willful patent infringement by issuing a unanimous decision in No. 14-1513, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse … Continue reading
Merck’s Solvaldi® Patents Unenforceable for Egregious Misconduct
In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04057-BLE (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2016), Judge Beth Freeman, sitting in equity, found that the record compelled a finding that Merck and its employee “D” had obtained asserted patents … Continue reading