The Intellectual Property Litigation Committee considers its area of responsibility litigation relating to patent, trademark, copyright, trade secrets, the Internet, and related unfair competition cases. The wide scope of this committee runs from technical products to artistic works. Though focusing on federal law, it also touches upon state law and international concerns. With approximately 2300 members, we are one of the largest and most active substantive law Committees in the Section of Litigation.

Owners of patents that issued more than three years after filing should check to see if they are entitled to a greater patent term adjustment than was calculated by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) at the time of issuance.

Federal law provides businesses with the ability to sue a patent holder to obtain a declaratory judgment that their products are not infringing the patent holder’s patent.

It has been standard practice since the 1952 Patent Act for patent lawyers across all technology disciplines to include in patent applications an adequate written description to show that the inventors were in possession of the invention and a teaching of the skills needed in making and using the invention.

The courtroom at the U.S. Supreme Court was overflowing with patent attorneys, many having waited in line for more than three hours to get in. Following the oral argument on November 9, 2009, in Bilski v. Kappos, one thing seems certain—Mr. Bilski is not likely to get a patent on his method of hedging consumption risk.

Patentees alleging infringement have become accustomed to the defense of inequitable conduct that defendants almost reflexively raise. Inequitable conduct is found when a patent applicant breaches his duty of candor and good faith to the Patent and Trademark Office while applying for his patent, usually by failing to submit material known to be material to patentability.

The Fall 2009 edition of the Intellectual Property Litigation newsletter is now available.

» View the Newsletter |