October 2007 (Part I) – Click for full issue

• Substitution of known multiplexer obvious
• Evidence of long-felt need raised fact issue on whether there was an apparent reason to combine
• Inequitable conduct arising from improperly paying small entity fees, falsely claiming priority to earlier applications, failing to disclose related litigation, failing to disclose declarant’s financial interests, and withholding prior art
• Failure to disclose Office Actions from copending continuation applications during reexamination proceeding was inequitable conduct
• Equivalent foreseeable for prosecution history estoppel since it fell within scope of original claim
• Legal malpractice claims against patent attorneys held to arise under § 1338 where patent law is a necessary element of the malpractice claims
• Summary contempt proceedings apply to ANDA litigations
• Phrase “obtained by the process of claim 1” held to make the claim a dependent claim
• Whether prior art precludes scope of equivalents held to be a question of law for the court
• State university waived its sovereign immunity by agreeing to a forum selection clause in a license agreement
• Field of use licensee lacks standing to sue in its own name
• PTO issues guidelines for determining obviousness rejections in view of KSR
• PTO revises implementation of new rules

Posted in Patent Happening