Tag Archives: patent litigation

ILN Today Post


In this month’s edition of our Law & Litigation News series, partnerWilliam Norvell examines the impact of patent law changes on patent litigation as well as patent application preparation. Read the full article below.
PDF FileMore Changes to Patent Litigation Laws

Read full article

Joel B. Rothman quoted in CRN.com article about technology litigation

Arnstein & Lehr Attorney Joel B. Rothman

Joel B. Rothman

Arnstein & Lehr West Palm Beach Partner Joel B. Rothman was quoted in an August 28 article in CRN.com, titled “In the Wake of Apple V. Samsung: Is Patent Litigation On The Rise?” The article discusses the increasing number of patent infringement claims, involving both large and small companies, in the wake of the Apple versus Samsung case. Mr. Rothman comments that claims to originality are being litigated extensively in patent infringement cases and many companies are suing for infringement on patents that should never have been received in the first place because they are for methods of doing business that were very well known.

To read the article in full, please click here.

Read full article

Intellectual Property Alert: Patent owners rejoice: Inequitable conduct in litigation more difficult to prove

Decision raises the threshold to prove inequitable conduct in patent litigation
The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Therasense v. Becton raises the threshold for proving inequitable conduct as a defense to patent infringement. “To prevail on a claim of inequitable conduct, the accused infringer must prove that the patentee acted with the specific intent to deceive the PTO.” The Federal Circuit explained that, to prove specific intent to deceive, requires an accused infringer must “prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant knew of the reference, knew that it was material, and made a deliberate decision to withhold it.”

Therasense (now Abbott) filed a patent application for disposable blood glucose test strips for diabetes management. During the 13 years of prosecution, the application received multiple rejections for anticipation and obviousness. To overcome these rejections, Abbott submitted an affidavit from its Director of Research and Development, and the application finally issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,820,551 (the ‘551 Patent).

Read full article