More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
St Petersburg Attorney
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action involving disclosure of information in a police officer’s personnel files, trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to compel disclosure is affirmed where the police department complied with its obligations under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act in withholding the requested materials as it is unreasonable to require the department to disclose internal investigative materials that it is not authorized to use in making personnel determinations.
K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School District
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Education Law, Injury And Tort Law) In an action against a school district for negligent supervision of a teacher, trial court’s judgment of dismissal following the sustaining without leave of a demurrer by defendant is reversed where plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse were sufficient to invoke the delayed discovery rule of accrual such that the September 2007 tort claim is deemed timely for pleading purposes.
tampa lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 10th Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a Lanham Act action based on Defendant’s sale of Plaintiff’s products without Plaintiff’s serial number label, a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff is affirmed, where the “first sale” doctrine did not apply because Defendant was doing more than simply stocking, displaying and reselling Plaintiff’s products.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Tafas v. Doll
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In an action involving four rules recently promulgated by the USPTO, district court’s ruling is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the four final rules challenged in this case are procedural and thus within the scope of the USPTO’s rulemaking authority; and 2) Final Rule 78 conflicts with 35 U.S.C. sec. 120 and is invalid.
attorney in tampa florida
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
April 10, 2009 4:30 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe