Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Shows Need for Amending Bankruptcy Law
A district court has ruled that the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not apply to invalidity grounds that relied on physical products. The court also declined to apply judicial estoppel, notwithstanding...more
Deciding who invented patents can be “one of muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of the patent law.” Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D. Pa. 1972). But identifying who...more
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s...more
In a case of twisting facts, a trial judge has denied a plaintiff’s motion to correct inventorship to add an inventor to a patent because that plaintiff previously asked the PTO to remove that same inventor from the patent...more
In order to qualify as an inventor on a U.S. patent, a person must contribute to the conception of the invention as embodied in one or more of the claims—merely building or implementing the already-conceived technology is not...more