Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
Legal Ethics Forum Legal Ethics Forum April 12, 2006 Blog Tales? I'm giving a talk on ethics and blawgging at a seminar in San Francisco on April 21st, and wondered if anyone had any war or horror stories about lawyers and blawgs. Has someone said something stupid about a client, revealed confidential information, etc? Would love to have stories, even if genericized. Post here or email me david@hricik.com Thanks in advance! Posted by David Hricik on April 12, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) April 11, 2006 "Materiality" Isn't Controlled by 1.56 An opinion by a panel of the Federal Circuit recently held that the enforceability of a patent is determined by the "would the information have been important to a reasonable examiner" standard, and not the (arguably) narrower standard established in 1992 in 37 CFR 1.56. For reasons I wrote about long ago, I think that's the right result. It's also an important rule of law that may create some problems for patent lawyers. Rule 1.56 defined information that had to be disclosed to the Patnet Office as being either (1) information that, by itself or in combination with other information, would establish the invalidity of a claim or (2) information that contradicted a position on patentability the applicant was making before the Office. Full Article: http://www.legalethicsforum.com/ |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||