March 2009 – Click for full issue

• Contention of “practicing the prior art” could be used as evidence to negate intent for inducing infringement
• Bare bones statement of prior invention by potential accused infringer at the tail end of prosecution and inventor’s offer to further discuss the alleged prior invention satisfied inventor’s duty to investigate
• Generic drug maker’s uncooperative discovery practices justified extending 30-month stay in ANDA litigation
• Showing sold product was “reasonably capable” of being configured in an infringing manner failed to prove infringement
• Covenant-not-to-sue for past infringement did not moot case or controversy for accused infringer’s declaratory judgment
• Withdrawing infringement claims treated as granting an unconditional covenant-not-to-sue on those claims
• E.D. Texas court finds transfer unwarranted where sources of proof were divergently located and the Texas forum was more centrally located than the proposed transferee forum
• Settlement agreement was not § 287 “actual notice” for redesigned product
• Advertising infringing product as being “innovative” did not support a Lanham Act false advertising claim
• Firm submits Supreme Court amicus curiae brief in Bilski on behalf of biotech client