ARTICLE
5 October 2004

The Standard of Review For Inventorship Claims

MW
McDermott Will & Emery

Contributor

McDermott Will & Emery logo
McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. With more than 1,100 lawyers across several office locations worldwide, our team works seamlessly across practices, industries and geographies to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a rehearing of its recent decision in Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., et al., for the limited purpose of correcting the Court’s reporting of the district court’s decision regarding Linear’s motion for summary judgment that Vinsant was not an inventor of the `178 patent.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a rehearing of its recent decision in Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., et al., for the limited purpose of correcting the Court’s reporting of the district court’s decision regarding Linear’s motion for summary judgment that Vinsant was not an inventor of the `178 patent. The only change made by the Federal Circuit in the revised decision was to correct the standard of review with regard to the question of inventorship from an abuse of discretion standard to one based on a failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., et al., Case Nos. 02-1569, 02-1576 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 17, 2004).

In its earlier decision, the Federal Circuit held:

"Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that Vinsant’s inventorship claim was not corroborated, we affirm the district court’s denial of Maxim’s motion for summary judgment as to inventorship."

In the revised decision, the Federal Circuit modified the standard as follows:

"Because the district court, after viewing the evidence in a light favorable to Maxim, correctly concluded that no reasonable juror could find that Vinsant’s inventorship claim was corroborated, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Vinsant was not an inventor of the `178 patent."

In all other respects, the Federal Circuit’s earlier decision remained the same.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More