"Improper Revival" Not A Cognizable Defense In An Action Involving The Validity Or Infringement Of A Patent
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.24.08
In Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Tech. (No. 2008-1016; Sept. 22, 2008), the Federal Circuit reverses a district court's grant of summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,056,215 ("the '215 patent"), and the continuation patent that followed it, are invalid on the grounds that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "improperly revived" the '215 patent after it was abandoned during prosecution. The Federal Circuit holds that "improper revival" is not a cognizable defense in an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent, reasoning that the proper revival of an abandoned application is not a defense recognized by the patent statute nor is it a ground specified in the patent statute as a condition for patentability.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.22.24
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.24
GSA Clarifies Permissibility of Upfront Payments for Software-as-a-Service Offerings
