The Intellectual Property Strategist

Gripe sites are Web sites whose purpose is to complain, criticize, and revile businesses or other institutions. So, what to do.

…

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

Features

To avoid declaratory judgment actions, patent holders may opt to sue or threaten the purchasers of an allegedly infringing product, without threatening suit against the manufacturer. In effect, the patent holder coerces the manufacturing company to give up the right to manufacture or distribute the accused product by scaring off its customers. At what point does this activity create grounds for a declaratory judgment action by the manufacturer?

In <i>Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,</i> the Federal Circuit addressed whether the "safe-harbor" provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act applies to immunize infringement if the accused product is reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA for regulatory approval purposes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has long maintained a high bar for proving inequitable conduct. This high bar is appropriate given the severity of the remedy &mdash; unenforceability of the entire patent &mdash; and the relative ease of using hindsight to find fault with the prosecution of a patent. Several recent decisions, however, have pointed toward a sinking standard for proving inequitable conduct, which has created an atmosphere of uncertainty about the proper scope of the inequitable conduct defense. The Federal Circuit's recent opinion on the subject, <i>Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,</i> appears to be an attempt to right the ship by reiterating the standards for proving inequitable conduct that were established more than 20 years ago.

&#133;

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.