Last Month at the Federal Circuit - June 2010


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.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

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

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.