May 23, 2012
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, “Inequitable Conduct After Therasense: Materiality and the Intent to Deceive in Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,” presented by Alison Aubry Richards. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
On April 9, 2012, for the first time after the Therasense decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct in Aventis, signifying that inequitable conduct based on failure to cite prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is still a viable patent infringement defense.
Inequitable conduct has long required both intent to deceive and materiality. Prior to the May 2011 decision in Therasense, the Federal Circuit had generally applied a low standard for intent and a broad view of materiality. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense changed these standards for inequitable conduct, making it far more difficult to prove. First, the Federal Circuit required specific knowing and deliberate intent to deceive. Second, Therasense raised the materiality standard, requiring “but-for” materiality. In Aventis, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct for the first time since Therasense.
This webinar will address these topics and more:
- How to defend against an inequitable conduct defense;
- How to maximize the chances of a successful inequitable conduct defense; and
- How to avoid inequitable conduct as a prosecuting attorney, before and during litigation.
Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Alison Aubry Richards. Alison is a trial attorney in the firm’s litigation group and focuses her practice on patent and copyright litigation. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 2003.
- Effective Trade Secret Practices: What You and Your Employees Need to KnowFitch Even Webinar: September 26, 2019 Read more
IP Alert | Supreme Court Rules Licensor's Rejection of Trademark License Agreement in Bankruptcy Proceedings Doesn't Deprive Licensee of Its RightsSeptember 10, 2019
On May 20, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not rescind the licensee rights that the contract previously granted. Read more