Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> ISinIP
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: ISinIPQuick Justice Curbs Some Practices.
By thomason
Digging into Innogenetics v. Abbott Labs, (1/17/08 CAFC), you find a case that went from filing through trial in the W.D. Wisconsin in only one year. That is a laudable goal for patent litigation. While swift justice is hoped for, an accompanying feature is that some proofs and strategies get cut away. Here, the CAFC affirms the pretrial exclusion of a “supplemental” expert report as well as the lay-expert testimony of the inventor of claimed invalidating references. Ouch!
One notion that is not often heard is exclusion of a prior art reference that was not disclosed until “the final day of discovery.” Most patent litigators have gotten use to that disclosure being made 30 days before trial, as the statute allows, and regardless of dates in the pretrial order. Here though, the last day of discovery was deemed too late for the opponent to prepare and deal with the reference.
Similarly, there so often is a last-minute flurry of “supplemental” expert reports, but apparently not in Wisconsin. The lower court excluded that, about six weeks before trial, stating that the permission to supplement is “not a blank check for a party to use submit new arguments regarding a matter previously mentioned.” In application, that exclusionary logic was applied to contentions in the supplemental report, which regarded a previously cited prior art. The supplemental report and excluded reference were known “intimately” to the opponent, since the references were key to the inequitable conduct claims - but, the court ruled that was old, and the way the supplemental submissions dealt with the matters was new, and so, excluded. Ouch! In the main, it was thought that the courts had a duty to assess the validity of a patent, in view of all art, even that which was late-cited or even uncited. The public interest in the validity of any patent monopoly outweighed the narrow concerns with control over the docket and the deadlines. But, apparently not in Wisconsin
Full post as published by ISinIP on January 17, 2008 (boomark / email).
Anna Nicole Smith's Legal Troubles
Court cases and legal issues related to Anna Nicole Smith
Employee Lawsuits: Negligent Hiring and Retention
Employers must check references, criminal records, other background material.
Immigration Related Employment Discrimination & Unfair Labor Practices
What to do about employers who discriminate because of national origin
Katrina Victims See Justice, Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Katrina Victims See Justice Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Hayes Bicycle Group
Recalls Quick-Release Devices
Medtronic
Recalls Specific Lots of Paradigm Quick-Set Infusion Sets
Bank of America Faces Class Action over Mortgage Foreclosure Practices
Bank of America Faces Class Action over Mortgage Foreclosure Practices
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
NCAA Sued for Conspiracy and Anti-competitive Practices Related to Athletic Scholarships
Hip & Knee Replacement
alleging sterilization practices can cause implant failure.

Attorney General Reverses Curbs On Gay Group at Justice Department
Oversight Hearing on Grantmaking Practices at the Department of Justice
Analyst "Quiet Period Practices Survey
A Quick Look at Best Practices for Legal Education Blog
American Association for Justice Rejected This Ad...
"How Solos Can Gain Financial Flexibility"








