1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |No Modification to a Challenger's Burden of Persuasion Upon Showing of Allegedly Anticipatory Prior Art

No Modification to a Challenger's Burden of Persuasion Upon Showing of Allegedly Anticipatory Prior Art

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.20.08

In Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc. (Nos. 07-1441, -1463; Oct. 10, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a trial court's judgment of invalidity, noninfringement, and no inequitable conduct.

The Federal Circuit clarifies its recent ruling in PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008), on which party bears the burden of proof to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date. Despite legal commentary to the contrary, PowerOasis simply held that, when an alleged infringer has introduced sufficient evidence to show that there is anticipatory prior art dated earlier than the application date of the asserted patent, the patentee has the burden of going forward with evidence to the contrary. The Federal Circuit reiterates, however, that "[i]t is a long-standing rule of patent law" that the burden of persuasion never shifts and thus remains with the alleged infringer to show by clear and convincing evidence that a patent is invalid.

Similarly refusing to disrupt consistent case law on the issue of inequitable conduct, the court rejects an argument that an anticipatory prior art reference is material as a matter of law. A reference that is cumulative to other prior art of record cannot be material for purposes of inequitable conduct.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....

View All Insights