My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Powered by Rollyo

Blogroll

IP.com Library Search

« Infringement Nation - Copyright 2.0 and You | Main | Announcing Version 2.0 of the E-Discovery Team Training Program »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452483069e201538ed8ce2e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. v. SEB S. A. Affirmed:

Comments

patent litigation

The Court's ruling makes sense because of a very important point: Pentalpha did not tell its attorney that it had purchased and directly, deliberately copied the SEB fryer. If Pentalpha had informed its lawyer as to this fact, then the attorney likely would have found the patent. Because of this deliberate failure to inform the attorney of its copying, the prior art search was just a cover, and "willful blindness" makes complete sense. That considered, I'm glad this patent litigation went in favor of SEB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZJQhW58ac&feature=related

The comments to this entry are closed.