Furthering Insolvency?
August 15, 2003
What was Enron's Board thinking? Where were the Tyco directors while Dennis went shopping? Had MCI's directors been invited to Scott's new Florida mansion? This stuff makes the headlines, but all across the country, decisions are made by boards of directors that don't come close to this scale and will never see the light of day, much less a courtroom. However, these decisions are no less questionable and susceptible to attack, leaving a director in litigation for years. This is particularly true should the company end up in bankruptcy with creditors having been harmed.
Bankruptcy: What Happens to the Royalty Payments?
August 01, 2003
In a decision interpreting for the first time certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Code, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that royalty payments belonged to the estate of the bankrupt debtor/licensor rather than to the new owner by assignment of the underlying intellectual property covered by the licenses. <i>In re CellNet Data Systems, Inc.,</i> 327 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2003). The Third Circuit held that the debtor/licensor was permitted to sever the right to receive the remaining royalty payments due on the license from the transfer of the underlying intellectual property rights.
IP News
August 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
The Value of 'Research Tool' Patents in View of <i>Integra v. Merck</i>
August 01, 2003
On June 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemingly breathed new life into research tool patents when it held that the use of patented peptides for drug discovery was not exempt from infringement under the "safe harbor" provision of 35 U.S.C. '271(e)(1). <i>Integra Lifesciences, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,</i> 331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In an earlier case, <i>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,</i> No. 95 Civ. 8833, 2001 WL 1512597 (S.D.N.Y 2001), a district court had ruled that the use of patented intermediates for drug screening was non-infringing, thereby implicating that the use of other research tool patents for drug discovery was likewise sheltered from infringement liability under '271(e)(1).
Patent News
August 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest patent news and cases from across the country.
IP News
May 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases and news from around the country.
Patent Infringement Damages: Riding The Wine Railway Can Be Expensive
May 01, 2003
When the plaintiff in a patent litigation contends that it has never made or sold the product protected by its patent, alarm bells should start clanging in the ears of defense counsel. For the odds are that the plaintiff is angling to take advantage of a little-used aspect of the law of patent damages that can lead to a windfall recovery for patent infringement. It is the <i>Wine Railway</i> exception to the well-known "notice" provision of the patent statute. Created by the Supreme Court in <i>Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co.</i>, 297 U.S. 387 (1936), the exception can lead to catastrophic and unforeseen patent damage awards. Such damages are unforeseen (and, some would argue, unfair and undeserved) because they arise without any notice of infringement, actual or constructive.
The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents Part 1 of 2
May 01, 2003
The ability of patents to encourage innovation by granting exclusive rights is well-recognized. However, patents can serve an antithetical role as well by, in certain circumstances, deterring, rather than encouraging, innovation.
