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 | less than 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 | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights