FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W262926229> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W262926229 startingPage "157" @default.
• W262926229 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a compulsory counterclaim as any counterclaim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim.1 Accordingly, after a claim has been brought against a defendant, the defendant must plead as a compulsory counterclaim any claim has against the plaintiff that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as that which gave rise to the plaintiff's claim. Otherwise the defendant forever loses his ability to assert that claim in a future judicial proceeding.2 To determine if the counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence, a court will decide if a logical relationship exists between the claims and if a common set of facts and evidence will be necessary to evaluate the merits of both claims.3 By following Rule 13 and applying the logical relationship test, the Second Circuit barred an antitrust suit that was based on the enforcement of an invalid patent and filed two years after summary judgment was issued in a patent infringement case concerning the same patent. The court found the antitrust claim to be compulsory to the earlier litigation.4 Despite a logical relationship or similarities in the facts, evidence, and issues between a patent infringement suit and its companion antitrust counterclaim, not all of the regional circuits have treated this compulsory/permissive issue in the same way; some courts have found a judicially created exception to Rule 13 that only occurs in patent law.5 Some courts believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that antitrust counterclaims to patent infringement suits should always be considered permissive counterclaims and thus allowed in subsequent IMAGE FORMULA6 proceedings.6 This exception may have had shaky support in the past; however, in light of recent cases redefining the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, this exception should be reevaluated and forever closed. Specifically, this Note examines whether Walker Process counterclaims to patent infringement litigation should be considered compulsory or, instead, be subject to a judicially created exception to Rule 13. In order to do so, Part II of this Note probes the common origins of the Walker Process counterclaim and inequitable conduct. Part III briefly discusses the jurisprudence of Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Part IV examines Mercoid Corp. v. MidContinent Investment Co.,7 the Supreme Court decision cited by many courts as creating a judicial exception to Rule 13 for antitrust counterclaims. Part V addresses the viability of this exception in light of modern case law regarding Walker Process claims and whether this exception should remain intact today. Finally, Part VI explores the practical and strategic uses of a Walker Process claim. II. THE RAMIFICATIONS OF FRAUD UPON THE PATENT OFFICE A. Inequitable Conduct A high burden of frankness is placed upon any individual associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent because of the ex parte nature of patent prosecution.8 Any applicant, his attorney, or his assignee has a duty of candor and good faith when dealing with the Patent Office and is required to disclose to the Patent Office any known information that may be material to the invention's patentability.9 A violation of this duty of disclosure or a fraud upon the Patent Office will foreclose the possibility of receiving a patent.10 As a disincentive for shirking this duty, infringement defendants are allowed access to an inequitable conduct defense.11 IMAGE FORMULA12 The guiding doctrine of inequitable conduct is the maxim he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.12 Any willful act or omission by an individual involved in the filing or prosecution of a patent that transgresses equitable standards of conduct gives rise to an inequitable conduct defense. …" @default.
• W262926229 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W262926229 creator A5069124873 @default.
• W262926229 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W262926229 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W262926229 title "In Light of Nobelpharma AB V. Implant Innovations, Inc., Should Walker Process Claims Be Treated as Compulsory or Permissive Counterclaims to Patent Infringement Litigation" @default.
• W262926229 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W262926229 type Work @default.
• W262926229 sameAs 262926229 @default.
• W262926229 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W262926229 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W262926229 hasAuthorship W262926229A5069124873 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C2777029862 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C2780858371 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C75949130 @default.
• W262926229 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C144133560 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C162324750 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C17744445 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C190253527 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C199360897 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C199539241 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C2777029862 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C2779777834 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C2780858371 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C34974158 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C41008148 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C538833194 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C75949130 @default.
• W262926229 hasConceptScore W262926229C97460637 @default.
• W262926229 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W262926229 hasLocation W2629262291 @default.
• W262926229 hasOpenAccess W262926229 @default.
• W262926229 hasPrimaryLocation W2629262291 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W109543695 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W1492278628 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W1549902793 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W1593999729 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2108977921 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2168537067 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2254271611 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2273022408 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2278794192 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2289780180 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2292473680 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2334618724 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2522846731 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W2686358987 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W3123474723 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W3124040464 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W313674717 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W3209752409 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W634187111 @default.
• W262926229 hasRelatedWork W73756677 @default.
• W262926229 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W262926229 isParatext "false" @default.
• W262926229 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W262926229 magId "262926229" @default.
• W262926229 workType "article" @default.