|
|
Article: Presumption Of Validity Zapped By Prior Art Commercial Product.(Woodstream Corp. verses Agrizap Inc.)
- Article from:
- Mondaq Business Briefing
- Article date:
- May 1, 2008
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2008 Mondaq Ltd. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of Woodstreams judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of obviousness of Agrizap's patent to electronic rodent killing devices. The Court's ruling was noteworthy given Agrizap's patent issued over the very same invalidating prior art and Agrizap submitted substantial evidence at trial of secondary considerations of non-obviousness that did not save the patent from extermination. Agrizap Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., Case Nos. 07-1415, -1421 (Fed. Cir., March 28, 2008) (Moore, J.).
Agrizap sued Woodstream in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ...