Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousPatent Law Exam 2010: Part II
By Dennis Crouch
For the past several decades, an accused infringer wanting to challenge a patent's validity in court has been required to provide clear-and-convincing evidence of invalidity. In Microsoft v. i4i, the Supreme Court is considering whether the standard should be lowered to a preponderance-of-the-evidence ? especially in situations where the invalidity argument was not considered by the patent examiner during the original prosecution of the patent application.
a) From a policy perspective, how should the Supreme Court rule?
b) Does it make a difference that third-parties can request reexamination of an issued patent?
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on January 10, 2011 (boomark / email).
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
Apeks Scuba Diving Regulator
Recalled Due To Missing Part
Ellsworth School District
4.4% increase in salaries as part of contract settlement.
Tyson Foods
Donates Chickens as Part of Class Action Settlement

Rambus gets mixed bag from USPTO re-exam
Patent Information Session: Exam Tips and Career Strategies
Patent Law Information Session









