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
Please see full publication below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.