The Official Gazette and willful patent infringement: Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc

Article Abstract:

The three part test for imputation of employee knowledge contained in the Restatement (Second) of the Law of Agency is the proper test to apply in determining willful patent infringement. In Stryker Corp v. Intermedics Orthopedics Inc, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit improperly disregarded the undisputed fact that the in-house attorney with knowledge of the infringed patent did not know its relevance. The policy of encouraging new advances by balancing disclosure and protection of patent holders' right is best served by applying agency law.

Intent (Law), Agency (Law)

---

Stare un-decisis: the sometimes rough treatment of precedent in Federal Circuit decision-making

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit does not have the advantage of allowing cases to advance to it through the various circuit courts, each serving as a testing ground for various approaches to the law and for this reason, it can be dangerous for the Federal Circuit to announce too many bright line rules. As long as the Court continues on difficult cases to disrespect its own precedent, it will fall short of the goals Congress sought to meet in creating this circuit, charging it with protecting and extending the patent law in this country.

United States, Beliefs, opinions and attitudes, United States. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

---

The application of experimental use to design patents: a square peg in a round hole

Article Abstract:

Two US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, In re Mann and Tone Brothers v. Sysco Corp., demonstrate that the court has failed to consider the policy justification for experimental use negation in the design patent context. The experimental use exception to bars to patentability is intended to allow the inventor to reduce the invention to practice. The In re Mann dicta that experimental use can never occur in design patents is wrong, as is the holding in Tone Brothers that testing of a design constitutes experimental use.

Design protection

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The waiting at the (patent) bar is over - the Supreme Court decides Hilton Davis. Do the means justify the end - a matter of Bond, Bowles, the office and 35 U.S.C. s. 112, paragraph 6
• Abstracts: Real-time mess: Engate files patent infringement lawsuit against electronic court reporting firms. Wrapped too tight? federal appeals court decision offers broad protection against reverse engineering of software
• Abstracts: The look of a winner. Graceful exits: careful planning in a partnership agreement can take the acrimony out of firm defections
• Abstracts: Court hears cable TV decency case. Court upholds clinic zones, hears religion case. Court hears arguments: pension plans, booze ads
• Abstracts: Practicing under the new patent interference rules and new Rule 131. The taking of voluntary testimonial depositions in Japan for use in U.S. patent interferences

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.