Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Gibbons P.C.

Duty of Disclosure: Applicant’s Contradictory Statements to EPO and USPTO Support Finding of Inequitable Conduct

by

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On February 12, 2010

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 2008-1511 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) held that applicant’s statements made in proceedings before foreign patent offices may be required disclosures in prosecution before the USPTO (“PTO”), particularly when those statements directly contradict other statements made during prosecution. From the court’s holding: “An applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO.”

Executive Order on Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and S-1, Legislation to Abolish COAH

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On February 11, 2010

On February 9, 2010, Governor Chris Christie issued an Executive Order stopping all work for ninety (90) days on the processing of applications for substantive certification or implementation of the Third Round regulations by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). The Executive Order also creates a five-member Housing Opportunity Task Force which is tasked with producing a public report with analysis and recommendations regarding the current COAH rules within 90 days.

New ICANN Electronic UDRP (“eUDRP”) Procedures for Domain Name Disputes

by

Posted in Trademarks

On February 2, 2010

Last month, ICANN announced that its Board had approved changes to the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) providing for electronic filing of UDRP documents. Under the modified Rules, electronic filing will become mandatory effective March 1, 2010. Both the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) and the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) were quick to implement the paperless filings. WIPO began accepting paperless filings on December 14, 2009. The WIPO eUDRP procedures are explained in its new Supplemental Rules, Model Complaint and Filing Guidelines.

Lesniak Announces Hearing Date for COAH Reform Legislation

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On January 28, 2010

Senator Raymond J. Lesniak announced that on Monday, February 1, the Senate Economic Growth Committee, which he chairs, will begin hearing testimony on his Bill S-1, co-sponsored by Senator Bateman. S-1 would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and establish a streamlined and simple process to comply with NJ Supreme Court mandates that require every municipality maintain a fair share of low- and moderate-income housing.

Admissibility of Expert Testimony: Patent Law v. Federal Rules of Evidence

by

Posted in Patent

On January 26, 2010

Judge Young recently wrote a colorful and entertaining decision addressing a “disconnect between the Federal Rules of Evidence and the substantive doctrines of patent law [that] seems to have gone totally unremarked both by the patent bar and evidence scholars.” In the end, Judge Young ruled that the patent laws on obviousness trump the Federal Rules of Evidence. NewRiver, Inc. v. Newkirk Products, Inc., C.A. No. 06-12146-WGY, Memorandum & Order (D. Mass. Dec. 16, 2009).

Governor Christie’s Department of Environmental Protection Transition Subcommittee Issued Final Report

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On January 26, 2010

Governor Christie’s Department of Environmental Protection Transition Subcommittee issued its Final Report on January 15, 2010. The Report calls for significant changes in policies and practices in order to meet three overarching goals: “1) accelerate improvements to the environment, 2) remove unnecessary obstacles to economic growth and 3) more effectively manage limited fiscal and human resources.”

CONSUMERS FAIL TO MAKE THEIR MARK: Pro Se Plaintiffs Initiating Qui Tam Suits Under The False Marking Statute Face Uphill Battle

by

Posted in Patent

On January 15, 2010

What do adjustable bow ties have in common with disposable coffee cup lids? Not much, other than the fact that they have recently been at the center of false patent marking suits brought against major corporations not by competitors, but consumers. In each case, a consumer noticed that markings on certain products referred to patents which had long since expired.

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Trademark Challenge to Washington Redskins Name

by

Posted in Trademarks

On January 12, 2010

On November 16, 2009, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in the case of Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. The underlying action was brought by Native American activists (“Harjo”) who challenged the Washington Redskins’ right to register its team name and logos on the basis that they are scandalous, disparaging and may bring Native Americans into disrepute or contempt. Marks that do any of those things are not entitled to registration, as provided by Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). The sole issue submitted for the Supreme Court’s review, however, was whether the activists’ claim was barred by laches, as found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Under the Lanham Act, the grounds on which a trademark registration may be cancelled become limited once the registration has existed for five years. For example, after that point, no challenge may be brought on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive. However, the Lanham Act specifies that certain claims may be brought “at any time,” including that a mark is disparaging, that it has been abandoned, or has become generic. 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). The issue submitted for the Supreme Court’s review arose out of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) proceeding in which Harjo sought...

Copy Machine or Copy Service? “Volitional Conduct” and Direct Copyright Infringement

by

Posted in Copyright / E-Commerce

On January 6, 2010

Is a technology provider liable for direct copyright infringement when it provides the means for infringement instructed by its users? In the Cablevision case, Cartoon Networks LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit endorsed a line of cases holding that the provider is not liable absent “volitional conduct” that causes the copying to take place. Two recent district court decisions in the Southern District of New York appear to have applied this rule in seemingly inconsistent fashion.

Hatch-Waxman Settlements: Under Attack on Many Fronts

by

Posted in Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On January 6, 2010

Is an end coming for reverse payment settlements of Hatch-Waxman litigations?

The FTC, like Wile E. Coyote chasing The Road Runner, has been doggedly challenging settlements between brand name pharmaceutical companies and generics to resolve Hatch-Waxman litigations. Reverse payments settlements, which the FTC calls “pay-for-delay” deals, where Hatch-Waxman litigations are settled by the brand name drug company’s payment to the generics to stay off the market, have been the main target of the FTC since the late 1990’s. The FTC’s position is that reverse payments impermissibly thwart less expensive generic drugs from timely reaching consumers. While there is a circuit court split on the issue, the recent trend of courts, including the Federal Circuit, has been that reverse payments are acceptable because they are “within the exclusionary zone of the patent and thus [cannot] be redressed by federal antitrust law.” In re Ciprofloxacin (“Cipro”) Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 544 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied 129 S. Ct. 2828 (2009).

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories