Categories
Archives
Receive Email Updates
-
-
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021 Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner Pages
Archives
Monthly Archives: September 2012
Federal Circuit Knocks Outside the Box’s Inequitable Conduct Charges Out of the Box
The following is a guest post from Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner’s associate Ricardo Moran. The issues on appeal were whether Travel Caddy, Inc. had committed inequitable conduct for: (i) not disclosing the existence of the litigation on U.S. Patent No. … Continue reading
PERSONALIZED MEDICINE TAKES OFF WHILE DIAGNOSTIC ASSAYS ARE GROUNDED
A front-page article yesterday in the New York Times and other major newspapers reminded me that drug development and methods of medical treatment will be driven by the genomics of increasingly sub-divided patient populations. As reported by GenomeWeb, summarizing an … Continue reading
1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc. – Specific Intent Means Specific Intent
On September 13th, the Fed. Cir. reversed a district court ruling that the inventor and the attorney who prosecuted a chain of applications claimed multi-media entertainment systems had committed inequitable conduct by failing to disclose three “relevant” references at various … Continue reading
Akami/McKesson Decision Re-defines Induced Infringement
In a 6-5 decision, the Fed. Cir., sitting en banc, decided two appeals which presented questions closely related to when an actor is liable for inducing infringement under 271(b); Akami Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Tech’s., Inc. … Continue reading