Tag Archives: Therasense

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

PTO Proposes Supplemental Examination Rules – Extremely Expensive and Incredibly Complex

On January 25, 2012, the USPTO published proposed rules to implement the supplemental examination provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”). This procedure is intended to be utilized by patent owners to “clean up” patents of iffy validity before, say, … Continue reading

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