Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

The High Bar for Challenging an Improperly Revived Patent

The recent <i>In Re Rembrandt Technologies</i> decision is a reminder of both the potential consequence of a patent holder's disingenuous assertion of unintentionality and the challenges that defendants face when raising the improper filing of a petition to revive a lapsed patent as a defense.

9 minute read October 01, 2018 at 12:11 AM
By
Scott D. Locke
The High Bar for Challenging an Improperly Revived Patent

Almost two decades ago, Kevin Rivette and David Kline published Rembrandts in the Attic, which reminded patent holders that they should unleash the competitive power of their portfolios.

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • 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 have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which works under the umbrella of the Librarian of Congress, sets statutory-license royalty terms and rates. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently issued two notable decisions about the CRB.

October 01, 2026