Gibbons Law Alert
Gibbons is proud to once again sponsor lunch at the Rutgers Business School’s Blanche and Irwin Lerner Center for Pharmaceutical Management Studies Program on Thursday, April 26, and Friday, April 27, at Rutgers Business School – Newark, One Washington Park, Room 1027, 10th Floor.
Gibbons is pleased to announce that Charles H. Chevalier, Esq. has joined the firm as an Associate in the Intellectual Property Department. He will reside in Gibbons Newark office. Prior to joining Gibbons, Charles was an attorney at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, where he focused his practice on complex patent litigation. Charles received his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law and his B.A., in Biochemistry, from Swarthmore College.
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the well-publicized Assn. For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, et al. case (“Myriad”) for the purpose of vacating the underlying Federal Circuit decision — finding isolated DNA sequences from human genes as patentable subject matter — and remanding the case for reconsideration in view of its recent ruling in Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (“Mayo”).
The Federal Circuit recently demonstrated how active the Court is, and will continue to be. After having ruled in Zoltek III that the United States did not waive immunity from suit except for acts that would constitute direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the Court voted sua sponte to reconsider the question en banc.
In a much anticipated decision, a unanimous Supreme Court today reversed the ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and held that Prometheus’ process is not patent eligible. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., No. 2008-1403, slip. op. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2010), rev’d, 566 U.S. __ (2012). Mayo purchased and used medical diagnostic tests based on Prometheus Labs’ patents, but later sold and marketed its own diagnostic test. Prometheus Labs brought suit, asserting that Mayo’s test kits infringed its patents.
In In re Staats, a Federal Circuit panel including Judges Dyk, O’Malley and Reyna found that the requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 251 for filing broadening reissue application within two years of patent issuance is met once a first broadening reissue application has been filed within that time period, and that subsequently-filed and broadening continuation applications based on the first broadening reissue application need not be filed within the two-year period. In reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit interpreted and affirmed a ruling made by its predessor court, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) in In re Doll.
As President-Elect of the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA), I am happy to announce that the NJIPLA will again host its well-received and well-attended “Annual Patent Litigation” seminar on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at the Woodbridge Hilton. This seminar is a half-day program starting at 11:45 am, and includes a meet and greet lunch. CLE credits for NJ (5.0) and NY/PA (4.5) will be awarded. The Woodbridge Hilton is easily accessible by car and a short walk from the Iselin train station, providing convenience for New York City and Philadelphia area attendees.
2011 was a significant year for the “atomic bomb” of patent defenses, inequitable conduct. Inequitable conduct is a defense to patent infringement that potentially renders a patent, and its family, unenforceable when a patent applicant breaches its duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO. Two traditional hurdles for succeeding on an inequitable conduct defense were showing that withheld information or falsely disclosed information was material and the patent applicant intended to deceive the USPTO.
In a recent order, a judge in the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that the defendants were misjoined because even though “some of the products incorporate the same wireless technology [it] does not alter the fact that Plaintiff brings suit against unrelated defendants for independent acts of infringement.” One-E-Way Inc. v. Plantronics Inc. et al, 2:11-cv-06673, at 2 (CD Cal. January 19, 2012).
Kodak’s recent bankruptcy filing raises a host of issues relating to intellectual property. Foremost among these is the need for any Kodak patent licensees to diligently monitor the on-going proceedings to ensure their rights are preserved in the thousands of patents in Kodak’s portfolio. Among these are some 1,150 digital imaging patents slated to be auctioned later this year.