June 28, 2007
I will periodically post case citations from the Federal Circuit along with the date of the opinion/order and a brief list of the legal topics discussed therein (specifically those with additional embedded case law citations). My goal is to post new cases on a weekly basis. This posting covers the last two patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 25th calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
International Rectifier Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, et al. (06/21/2007, non-precedential): appeal of reduced fees & cost award (this particular appeal in the string of intellectual property litigation is not patent-specific)
Bender v. Dudas (06/21/2007): appeal of district court’s decision granting summary judgment upholding a USPTO disciplinary action barring Bender from practicing before the USPTO (affirmed); discussion of actions taken by an invention promoter affiliated with an attorney licensed to practice before the USPTO; the USPTO has statutory authority to suspend or exclude “from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who does not comply with the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D) of this title”; discussion of prosecution of patents as design application when inventors requested utility patent applications; discussion of “money-back guarantee” that a patent would issue; failure to notify clients of receipt of final office actions until after the expiration of the initial three-month window; general discussion of sufficiency of information gathered by USPTO in order to proceed with sanctions against an agent/attorney; discussion of the sanction of exclusion from practicing before the USPTO; district court’s decision affirmed because the findings of the USPTO were supported by substantial evidence, because the action was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law
International Rectifier Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, et al. (06/21/2007, non-precedential): appeal of reduced fees & cost award (this particular appeal in the string of intellectual property litigation is not patent-specific)
Bender v. Dudas (06/21/2007): appeal of district court’s decision granting summary judgment upholding a USPTO disciplinary action barring Bender from practicing before the USPTO (affirmed); discussion of actions taken by an invention promoter affiliated with an attorney licensed to practice before the USPTO; the USPTO has statutory authority to suspend or exclude “from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who does not comply with the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D) of this title”; discussion of prosecution of patents as design application when inventors requested utility patent applications; discussion of “money-back guarantee” that a patent would issue; failure to notify clients of receipt of final office actions until after the expiration of the initial three-month window; general discussion of sufficiency of information gathered by USPTO in order to proceed with sanctions against an agent/attorney; discussion of the sanction of exclusion from practicing before the USPTO; district court’s decision affirmed because the findings of the USPTO were supported by substantial evidence, because the action was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law
0 comments:
Post a Comment