Cantor Colburn April / May 2015 IP Newsletter
Read all the articles here
Inequitable conduct crashes patent for car computer
When it comes to patent applications, full disclosure is always best. This article tells the cautionary tale of how submitting an application that withholds critical information can kill a patent issued from that application.
American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2013-1061, Sept. 26, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
Means-plus-function to an unfortunate end
How one patent failed the definiteness requirement
Patent drafters sometimes turn to “means-plus-function” language to claim an invention based on its function rather than its underlying structure. This article covers a recent ruling showing that such language, in and of itself, may not satisfy intellectual property law’s definiteness requirement.
Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 2014-1040, Oct. 14, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
How long is too long?
Delayed lawsuit filing preempts infringement claim
Those who believe they’ve been the victim of patent infringement shouldn’t delay filing a claim. By waiting too long, an accused infringer may be able to build a defense called “laches” — which may lead to the claim’s dismissal. This article describes a case in which this very circumstance came to pass.
SCA Hygiene Prods. AB v. First Quality Baby Prods., No. 2013-1564, Dec. 17, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
Sunk costs: Attorneys’ fees in Lanham Act cases
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has delivered some important news for any party that might contest attorneys’ fee claims in trademark infringement and other similar cases. As this article explains, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recently articulated standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in patent infringement decisions now also applies to Lanham Act cases.
Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, Nos. 13-3305 & 14-1572, Sept. 4, 2014 (3rd Cir.)
Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., No. 12-1184, April 29, 2014 (U.S. Supreme Court)
