In this Issue:

*Court Finds No Inequitable Conduct Where Challenger Presented Evidence of Only Materiality

*Claims Are Construed in Light of the Originating Disclosure When a Party Challenges Written Description Support During an Interference Proceeding

*No Interference-in-Fact Exists Because, Applying the Proper Construction, Junior Patent Is Not Obvious over Senior Reissue Application

*Distinct Enantiomers Are Different “Drug Products” and Properly Subject to Statutory Term Extensions

*Based on Defendants’ Trade Show Visits to Nevada, Court Finds Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Appropriate

*New and Improved Drug Product Eligible for Patent Term Extension Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156

*Cancellation Fee Not Required at the “Motion for Leave to Amend” Stage

*And MORE

Please see full publication below for more information.