Inequitable Conduct in IP Case, Plus Decision in Administrative Matter
Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., No. 09-1216, concerned a plaintiff's suit alleging infringement of a patent directed to a multi-mode radio-frequency identification system for reading encoded biocompatible chips for implantation in aninals.
In affirming the district court's judgment that the patent was valid and infringed, but unenforceable for inequitable conduct, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the argument that plaintiff's founder and president owed no duty of candor to the PTO as he withheld material information regarding his sales demonstrations of products that reflected the closest prior art to claims of the patent. Furthermore, the founder acted with deceptive intent that is imputed to plaintiff.
Guillory v. Shinseki, No. 09-7117, involved a challenge to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' affirmance of the Board of Veterans' Appeals' finding of no clear and unmistakable error in a regional office decision as well as dimissal of veteran's claims for increased compensation for lack of jurisdiction.
Because the onset and severity of the seizure disorder are questions of fact beyond this court's jurisdiction for review, claimant's challenge to the ruling on the seizure disorder is dismissed. However, the Veterans Court's decision is reversed and remanded with respect to the claim arising from the loss of the use of both buttocks and the right left trunks through the knee as its jurisdictional determination is erroneous.
- Full text of Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp
- Full text of Guillory v. Shinseki
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.