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 | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
