Tag Archives: Ronald Schutz

Evidentiary, My Dear Watson; Biosig, Instruments v. Nautilus, Inc.

This is a guest post from Ronald Schutz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. In Biosig, Instruments v. Nautilus, Inc., a unanimous panel of the Federal Circuit had little trouble deducing the definiteness of the patent at issue despite a … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lather. Rinse. Repeat — In re Baxter International, Inc.

The following is a guest blog from Ron Schutz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. It just got it easier for infringers to use reexamination as a way to wash a judicial patent validity determination right out of their hair. … Continue reading

Posted in Post-issuance procedures, Reexamination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Judge Goes Medieval On Spoilating Defendants

This summary of Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe et al., provided by Ron Schutz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi is a cautionary tale for patent prosecutors served with subpoenas (or about to be). If the appropriate steps are not … Continue reading

Posted in Litigation Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Just Medium Rare

This Post was written by Ronald Schutz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi and published with his permission. Slip that inequitable conduct claim back on the summary judgment “barbie”-the standard for establishing such claims as a matter of law is … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment