Therasense – Does It Make Sense? Is The Patent Law Doctrine Of Inequitable Conduct Now Fixed?
On June 22, 2011, the lawyers of Banner & Witcoff, Syracuse University Law Professor Lisa Dolak, and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for Johnson & Johnson, Philip Johnson, led a panel discussion that provided analysis and insight on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson
Click here to view the 90-minute recorded program.
- Hear: Has the Therasense case finally addressed the acknowledged fears of patent prosecutors—can you know what to disclose with any certainty now?
- Find out: Is nothing left, or do you—the litigator have a chance to prove inequitable conduct you perceive to exist from the non-disclosure of known references without adequate explanation for the non-disclosure?
- Learn: What are the new materiality and intent standards? Can intent still be inferred from materiality alone, or not?
- Consider: Will the PTO accept the new standards, or issue new standards by federal rule, MPEP revisions, and interpretive guidelines?
- Correlate: How do the holdings of the Therasense case relate to (1) the Federal Circuit’s recently-heightened standards for pleading inequitable conduct charges in the courts, and (2) the potential of the Supreme Court to lower the standard of evidence to prove patent invalidity in i4i v. Microsoft.
If you have technical difficulties with the webinar program file, please contact the webmaster at firstname.lastname@example.org.