October 2007 (Part II) – Click for full issue

• District Court grants preliminary injunction enjoining the November 1 implementation of the new PTO rules on continuation applications and limiting number of claims
• Ongoing royalty for post-judgment infringement may be proper in lieu of a permanent injunction
• Generic’s failure to show an apparent reason a PHOSITA would have selected a certain “lead” compound defeated its obviousness challenge
• ITC erred in claim construction requiring a choice of measuring methods
• Contract-based patent ownership claim under Bayh-Doyle Act did not “arise under” the patent laws
• Claims of extreme breadth in a highly unpredictable art were not enabled by a disclosure of a single working embodiment
• Failing to use words “incorporate by reference” defeated contention that references were incorporated into the specification
• Infringer’s apparent inability to pay damages award justified granting permanent injunction
• Patentee’s opinion of counsel provided defense against prevailing accused infringer’s request for attorney’s fees
• State’s waiver of sovereign immunity in one action did not extend to a second action involving the same parties and same subject matter
• Court orders pro bono representation of indigent patent infringement plaintiff

Posted in Patent Happening