Obviousness is a killer weapon for a defense lawyer in a patent infringement case. If he or she can prove that the patent in question is "obvious" (that is, not inventive and not worthy of a patent), the case can be tossed once and for all. But should juries be weighing in on whether a patent is obvious? An amicus brief in a case with Supreme Court aspirations makes the argument that judges should be the one deciding the issue, not the jury.
September 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Obviousness is a killer weapon for a defense lawyer in a patent infringement case. If he or she can prove that the patent in question is “obvious” (that is, not inventive and not worthy of a patent), the case can be tossed once and for all.
But should juries be weighing in on whether a patent is obvious? An amicus brief in a case with Supreme Court aspirations makes the argument that judges should be the one deciding the issue, not the jury.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
