Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JULY 2024

Southeast Litigation Update: March And April 2024

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in IP cases by the United States District Courts in the Southeast.

United StatesIntellectual Property

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in IP cases by the United States District Courts in the Southeast.

In Aqua EZ, Inc. v. Resh, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00790-MLB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 11, 2024), Judge Brown ordered Defendant Resh to produce information related to its pending patent applications, concluding a lengthy discovery dispute.

Courts apply a heightened relevancy standard in discovery disputes involving pending patent applications and related materials, which involves weighing the requesting party's interest in materials against the objector's legitimate interest in secrecy. Here, Resh did not dispute the relevance of information related to its pending applications but instead argued that 35 U.S.C. § 122 requires that the unpublished materials it submitted to the USPTO remain confidential. The court rejected this argument, holding that § 122 applies to the Patent Office but is not binding on the courts. Notably, the court

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

See more popular content from