Fletcher YoderFailure to disclose a material action, which potentially triggers the on-sale bar, with specific intent to deceive the PTO may constitute inequitable conduct, which renders any resulting patent unenforceable.
Federal Circuit affirms a finding of a patent invalid due to obviousness, a finding that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and a Walker Process antitrust award
The U.S. Supreme Court finds that the District Court may make the exceptional-case determination under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in the exercise of their discretion. The exceptional-case determination may be reviewed by an appellate court only for abuse of discretion.
District court abused its discretion in denying award of attorneys’ fees to intervenor in contempt proceedings against infringement defendants, since intervenor’s motion for fee award was not untimely, since mere fact that party voluntarily intervened does not preclude award of attorneys’ fees, and since award was proper under applicable state law.
Lost profits, according to the “entire market value rule,” may be recovered based on the value of the entire device including non-patented materials or components provided that a functional relationship exists between the patented device and the unpatented material or component. A functional relationship between a patented device and an unpatented material used with the device is not precluded by the fact that the device can be used with other materials, or that the unpatented material can be used with other devices.
Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages for infringement of patents for wireless e-mail transmission system, since defendant’s investigation of infringement accusations was insufficient to meet its duty of care, and in view of its significant investment income from infringing products, defendant can withstand award of enhanced damages.