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 | 10.22.25

Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Privilege Protections During Internal Investigations

On October 3, 2025, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed that the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine protections apply to materials created during attorney-led internal investigations. In re FirstEnergy Corp., No. 24-3654 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)....