Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Far-Reaching Effects of Inequitable Conduct
The Federal Circuit recently held that an applicant's failure to disclose material notes to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('PTO') can result in a finding of inequitable conduct that may render a patent, and even related patents, unenforceable. In Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience, N.V, No. 2007-1109, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 200027, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1582 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2008) ('Monsanto III'), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri's holdings: 1) that a patent was unenforceable for inequitable conduct based on the applicant's failure to disclose its employee's notes that directly contradicted claims made by the applicant during prosecution; and 2) that the district court had jurisdiction to declare three related patents unenforceable as well despite the fact that the patent holder had previously filed a motion to dismiss claims based on these three patents and had signed a covenant not to sue for infringement thereof.
In 2000, Monsanto Co. ('Monsanto') brought a declaratory judgment action against Bayer Bioscience N.V. ('Bayer') challenging the validity and enforceability of four Bayer patents (the 'Bayer Patents'), and asserting that Monsanto's transgenic corn products did not infringe these patents. The Bayer Patents all related to the insertion of the amino terminal portion of an insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis genes (the 'Bt toxin') into plants. Bt toxins, which are proteins, are toxic to certain crop-destroying insects, but harmless to humans. Thus, plants that are genetically engineered to produce the Bt toxin in sufficient quantities are insect-resistant, yet still safe for human consumption.
'Patents Unenforceable'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?