EPO congratulates new WIPO head
Fed. Cir. holds that "Improper Revival" may not be raised as a defense in patent action
"The threshold issue in this appeal is whether "improper revival" may be raised as an invalidity defense in an action involving the infringement or validity of a patent. The district court, relying on 35 U.S.C. §§ 282(2) and (4), decided that question affirmatively. The district court also found that the APA provided a separate basis upon which to review the PTO’s revival of the ’215 patent. We conclude that "improper revival" may not be raised as a defense in an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent."
Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v. International Game ...<< MORE >>
Federal Circuit allows inference of intent to deceive
"Here intent to deceive may be inferred from findings: (1) that the RFO art was highly material to the prosecution of the ’115 patent, (2) that the applicants knew of the RFO art and knew or should have known of its materiality, and (3) that the patentee has failed to come forward with any credible good faith explanation for the applicants’ failure to disclose prior art use of RFOs to the PTO."
Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 2007-1483 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 29, 2008)
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1483.pdf
PTO BPAI holds provisional applications are prior art under 102(e)
"[T]he statutory scheme of Title 35 indicates that Congress intended for "applications for patent" under [Section] 102(e) to apply to both regular utility applications and provisional applications, particularly when considering [Sections] 111 (b) and 102(e) together. As a published "application for patent" under this statutory framework, a provisional application-like a regular utility application-constitutes prior art for all that it teaches and, as << MORE >>
EPO Prize winners announced