<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
			
			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>Filewrapper&#xae; |  A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog by MVS - Standards-setting organizations</title>
			<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm</link>
			<description>News and Commentary from the world of Intellectual Property Law - The blawg of McKee, Voorhees &amp;amp Sease, P.L.C.</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:16:58-0500</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:11:00-0500</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Failure to disclose patents to SSO results in unenforceabilty against products using standard</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2009/3/23/Failure-to-disclose-patents-to-SSO-results-in-unenforceabilty-against-products-using-standard</link>
				<description>
				
				In a recent decision, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit&quot;&gt;Federal Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  affirmed-in-part a district court decision that a patentee had breached a duty to disclose relevant video-compression technology patents while participating in a joint video team standards-setting organization (SSO).&amp;nbsp; The Federal Circuit, however, reversed in part the district court decision finding the patents unenforceable against the world, instead holding the patents should only be held unenforceable against products embodying the applicable video standard.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The court affirmed the district court&amp;#39;s finding that the case was exceptional and awarding attorney fees to the defendant.&amp;nbsp; The plaintiff had concealed the existence of tens of thousands of relevant documents throughout discovery, with their existence not revealed until near the end of trial (we previously blogged about the district court&amp;#39;s decision awarding fees &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2007/8/8/Judge-sanctions-Qualcomm-for-concealing-over-200000-pages-of-documents-providing-false-testimony&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).&amp;nbsp; The Federal Circuit held this litigation misconduct was sufficient to support the exceptional case finding even absent the failure to disclose the patents to the SSO.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More on &lt;em&gt;Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Attorney fees/exceptional cases</category>				
				
				<category>Federal Circuit cases</category>				
				
				<category>Standards-setting organizations</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:11:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2009/3/23/Failure-to-disclose-patents-to-SSO-results-in-unenforceabilty-against-products-using-standard</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>