February 14, 2007
Dipping Dots--Inequitable But Not Monopolistic
Posted by Shubha Ghosh
Thanks to Dennis Crouch, over at Patently O, for sending my co-blogger a link to his post on the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Dipping Dots. The Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of noninfringement, obviousness and inequitable conduct, but reversed on the finding of a Walker Process violation. The appeals court found that the patent defendant failed to meet high standard of materiality required for a Walker Process claim. The opinion can be downloaded here. Download DDI.pdf
Overall, the opinion presents the differences between the doctrine of inequitable conduct and Walker Process claim well, avoiding the real risk of turning every case of patent invalidity into an antitrust claim. Walker Process claims are impossible to prove, and the court's analysis does a good job of explaining why.
On a lighter note, I am concerned that the finding of obviousness might lead to a proliferation of these frigid treats. My spouse worked on an arbitration involving DDI when she was in private practice, and one of the rewards of her work was a freezer full of the "ice cream of the future."
February 14, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dipping Dots--Inequitable But Not Monopolistic: