|
|
Article: Defense Of Improper Revival Of A Patent That Lapsed For Not Paying A Maintenance Fee Could Not Be Based On A s. 102(C) Abandonment.(Dell Inc. and Abstrax Inc. into patent infringement cases)(Case overview)
- Article from:
- Mondaq Business Briefing
- Article date:
- November 3, 2009
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2009 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)
|
Under some conditions, a patentee may revive a patent that has lapsed for failure to timely pay the required maintenance fees if the patentee shows its failure to pay the maintenance fee was unintentional or unavoidable.1 Accused infringers facing infringement claims based on a revived patent may seek to challenge whether the PTO properly permitted the patentee to revive the lapsed patent. District courts have reached opposite conclusions as to whether an accused infringer may assert an erroneous revival of a lapsed patent as an affirmative defense to a charge of infringement. Some courts have allowed the defense while others have held that improper revival is not an ...
Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles:
|
|
Article: Experimental-Use Defense Does Not Automatically Shield Nonprofit ...
Mondaq Business Briefing;
May 21, 2003 ;
700+ words
... ... with a purpose of furthering the accused infringer's commercial pursuits. Embrex ... Roche, 733 F.2d at 863. Where the accused infringer is a for-profit corporation, any ... experimentation having a goal of furthering the accused infringer's commercial pursuits, directly ...
|
|