Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, November 29 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following:

Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1204 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2010) (case attached) In a patent infringement suit related to a genus of tetrazine derivative compounds and methods for treating cancer by administering those compounds, district court’s judgment finding the ‘291 patent unenforceable for prosecution laches and inequitable conduct is reversed where: 1) the district court committed legal error in holding the ‘291 patent unenforceable for prosecution laches in the absence of any evidence of intervening rights; and 2) district court’s decision holding the ‘291 patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct is reversed as the district court committed clear error in finding that plaintiff acted with deceptive intent.

Hyatt v. Kappos, No. 07-1066  (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) (case attached) In plaintiff’s civil action against the Director of the Patent Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. section 145, related to a patent application for a computerized display system for processing image information, district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Director is vacated and remanded as 35 U.S.C. section 145 imposes no limitation on an applicant’s right to introduce new evidence before the district court, apart from the evidentiary limitations applicable to all civil actions contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as such, the district court abused its discretion when it excluded petitioner’s declaration under the wrong legal standard.