1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |"Improper Revival" Not A Cognizable Defense In An Action Involving The Validity Or Infringement Of A Patent

"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 | 5 min read | 10.20.25

What’s new for Belgian Construction Contracts under the New Book 7 of the Civil Code

In recent years, there has been a wave of new legislation impacting contracts and contractual terms. The Belgian legislator is gradually adopting the different Books of the Belgian Civil Code, and the Belgian Code of Economic Law has been updated several times. These changes affect the way contract terms need to be drafted, not only between companies but also with consumers....