Contributor Page
Matthews Patent-Law Consulting
 
Email  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 434 525 1141
Fax: +1 434 5251141
P.O. Box 22
Forest
VA 24551
United States
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Since 1889, the law has accepted the view that licensing rates agreed to as part of settling a patent infringement action do not provide competent evidence of the value of a patent for determining a royalty rate to apply in later cases.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Before Seagate,1 defenses to infringement developed during the course of litigation had an uncertain role in determining whether the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Recent cases show that courts are typically refusing to permit an accused infringer to present to a jury evidence of a non-final pending reexamination proceeding.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Following what arguably can be characterized as Supreme Court dictum, the district court in PRE Holding, Inc. v. Monaghan Med. Corp., 2009 WL 3874171 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2009), denied a patentee’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the patentee failed to make a "clear showing" of entitlement to relief.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
As a direct consequence of overruling the affirmative duty of due care to avoid infringement upon learning of a patent, the Federal Circuit expressly instructed in Seagate that "there is no affirmative obligation to obtain [an] opinion of counsel.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
With the much anticipated opinion of Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120, 2010 WL 27184 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010), the Federal Circuit overturned one aspect of the PTO’s methodology of calculating the amount of a patent term adjustment (PTA) an applicant is due under the Patent Term Guarantees of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Section 292 of the Patent Act provides that a person who falsely marks an unpatented article as being patented, where the false patent marking was done with an intent to deceive the public, "[s]hall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense."
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
For most of this decade the Eastern District of Texas has had the reputation for almost routinely denying motions to transfer a patent infringement action for the convenience of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
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.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Applying the "plausibility" standard announced in Twombly, and reaffirmed in Iqbal, to patent infringement allegations, which traditionally have been guided by the sample patent infringement pleading of Form 18 of the Appendices of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, raises difficult issues for the courts, litigants, and the patent community in general.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
One of the more controversial provisions of the proposed patent-law reform concerns the mandatory apportionment analysis required in assessing reasonable royalty damages for patent infringement when the entire-market-value rule does not apply.
By Robert Matthews, Jr.
Exergen does not alter the substantive law of inequitable conduct. But it does significantly increase the burdens for pleading inequitable conduct as an affirmative defense or as an unenforceability counterclaim. Undoubtedly, this opinion will have substantial and immediate impact on motion practice in patent litigation.