Tag Archives: Therasense

In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation – Making “Therasense” out of Confusion

Recently, a divided three judge panel sorting out a multi-party Hatch-Waxman suit, ruled that the patentee, Shinonogi, had not committed inequitable conduct in obtaining the patent that was subsequently reissued so as to obtain narrow claims focused on Rosuvastatin, or … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56, Reissue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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

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

Aventis v. Hospira – How to Meet the Therasense Standards

On April 9, 2012, The Fed. Cir. affirmed a holding by the district court that rendered two (then) Sanofi add-on patents on infusion vehicles for docetaxel unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The inventors, particularly inventor/project manager Fabre, were found to have … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Supplemental Examination Decision Tree – Lots of Dead Branches?

Well, I wish it were that simple, but I keep trying to conjure examples that would lead me to use supplemental examination to “purge inequitable conduct (IC)” that I discover after my patent issues, and which could provide the basis … Continue reading

Posted in AIA Patent Reform | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment