Cassandra Johnson
Link for opinion: http://www.gehrkelaw.com/2010/08/ring-plus-inc-v-cingular-wireless-corp.html
Title: Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless Corp.
In 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part the enforceability for inequitable conduct and affirmed-in-part the court’s entry of summary judgment of non-infringement.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s unenforceability for inequitable conduct concerning U.S. patent No. 7,006,608 titled “Software Algorithm and Method Enabling Message Presentation During a Telephone Ringing Signal Period.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 refers to material information known to be material to patentability, which may be broader than only such references as clearly qualify as prior art under a subsection of 35 U.S.C.S. § 102.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for U.S. patent No. 7,006,608 against Cingular Wireless and companies related, and affirm the denial of Ring Plus’s motion to disqualify Cingular’s counsel for allegedly improper ex parte party communications.
Ring Plus brought claims against Cingular Wireless for infringing on their patent from a service they provide called Answer Tones. The court decided that Cingular and their clients did not intentionally try to deceive the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The code of federal regulations title 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 refers to material information known to be material to patentability, which may be broader than only such references as clearly qualify as prior art under a subsection of 35 United States Code Service § 102.
Labels for the post: legal ethics, patent, infringement, inequitable conduct