May 2008 – Click for full issue

• Conditioning stay pending reexamination on accused infringer stipulating it would not use prior art cited in the reexamination
• Judge Rader speaks out against perceived lessening of required level of intent in inequitable conduct determinations
• Declaratory judgment claims for developing products
• Limited breadth of disclosure in specification limits claim scope
• Specification did not trump unambiguous claim language to save claim from drafting error
• Canceled and unasserted claims must be considered in determining whether a proposed construction reads out a preferred embodiment
• Arguments in prosecution history effectively limited scope of structural equivalents for a means-plus-function limitation
• Claim preclusion did not bar a second infringement suit even though the product accused in second suit could have been adjudicated in the first suit
• Claims added during reexamination solely to avoid a prior adverse claim construction ruling were improper under § 305
• Employee’s knowledge of infringing activity to start laches clock is not imputable to patentee if employee does not have duties regarding licensing and enforcing the asserted patent
• Settlement agreement with manufacturer allowed customer to practice later issuing patent despite provisions allegedly to the contrary
• Wavier for not first raising argument to district court not excused by use of new counsel on appeal