Keeping up with the growing body of case law is a must for IP lawyers. Federal Circuit decisions can impact a company’s IP portfolio strategy on many levels and in significant or subtle ways. Some decisions are of particular importance and well worth a closer look.
Please join our panelists as they discuss:
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
• After affirming the trial court, the Court granted a petition to rehear the issue of whether willfulness is a question of law subject to de novo review and returned the case to the panel
• In one of his last decisions as an active judge, Judge Gajarsa, writing for the panel, held that willfulness is a question of law. Willfulness may result in enhanced damages and includes a variety of objective as well as subjective factors, making it more appropriate, in the panel’s view, for resolution by the court.
Preston v. Marathon Oil Co.
• Preston involved a controlling question of Wyoming state law, namely, whether an at-will employment agreement can be modified without further consideration. Although the district court refused to certify the question to the Wyoming Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit did so on appeal. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that it can be modified. Preston v. Marathon Oil Co., 2012 WY 66; 277 P.3d 81 (2012).
• The Federal Circuit concluded that a modified agreement was binding. The case was controversial, and the Court reheard the case en banc and vacated the panel opinion. The en banc Court then evenly split, issuing a per curiam order affirming the trial court’s decision.
• Does Preston indicate a new trend of certification, rather than guessing what another court would do?
In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
Patent Litigation
• Builds on Supreme Court decision in i4i v. Microsoft
• Addresses burdens of proof in analyzing “objective indicia” of non-obviousness and the need to address such factors as part of an initial obviousness analysis.
• Distinguishes the burden-shifting concept of prima facie obviousness used in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and holds that, in district court, the burden always remains on defendant.
The analysis and discussion will be led by seasoned patent litigator Patrick J. Coyne. Patrick is a trial and appellate attorney who has argued over 90 cases in state and federal trial and appellate courts.
This webinar is the third in our 2012 Federal Circuit webinar series. We hope you are able to attend.
Date:
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
1:00 - 2:00 p.m. EDT
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.