Nice short update on District Courts after Therasense

A Finnegan Henderson attorney wrote it, here (fixed it).

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

5 thoughts on “Nice short update on District Courts after Therasense

  1. 5


    Then he committed perjury as well when in court he claimed the opposite.

    In my view, the findings of fact would have to show that his testimony that he did not know that the hangers were prior art was a lie. Part of showing that would be that the hangers were in fact prior art. I don’t see how one can avoid that proof.

    Without these caveats, the case stands for the proposition that if one is in doubt, disclose. But that is not the law now which requires knowledge of materiality.

    The case gives one pause. Are we backsliding?

  2. 3

    Ok, the attorney has hangers and photos of hangers, but no evidence they were prior art. He does not submit them. Now the patent is unenforceable?

    Hold on!! Shouldn’t the evidence prove that

    1. Hangers were prior art?
    2. That the attorney could easily have verified this fact?

    Without this showing, I am pretty sure if the attorney submitted the hangers and photos, the examiner would not have been able to use them in a prior art rejection. On what legal basis?

  3. 1

    Prof Hricik, your link does not work, as I think the period after “here” is (inadvertently) included. One must remember to include a space between embedded links and any punctuation.

Comments are closed.