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.
Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Finnegan | Attorney Advertising