Robert C Scheinfeld

May 22, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, write that traditionally, it has been standard practice for courts not to take into consideration the accused product when determining claim construction. This is changing. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit seemingly signal a change in the claim construction process, requiring greater and more particular knowledge of the accused products by the trial court.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

8 minute read

July 28, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, write that the courts continue to grapple with many unanswered questions: What is a famous mark? What type of speech is protected from a dilution claim? What is dilution and how does one prove it?

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

8 minute read

October 04, 2005 | Law.com

Robert C. Scheinfeld, head of the intellectual property group at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, write that as technology companies expand their development, use and sale of complex software to all corners of the globe, it becomes extremely important to understand the boundaries of U.S. Patent Law. Three recent Federal Circuit cases address cross-border patent infringement and should be of special interest to today's innovators.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

13 minute read

May 28, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, analyze a recent federal appellate decision that reversed the FTC's finding that Rambus Inc. had violated a key computer patent.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

9 minute read

January 25, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, write that the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted cert in a case which addreeses a growing concern associated with the perceived automatic injunction in business-method patent cases even though the patent holder does not practice the patented invention.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

11 minute read

September 26, 2007 | Law.com

On Aug. 20, the Federal Circuit abandoned almost 25 years of willful infringement jurisprudence. Instead of needing to show that the accused merely acted negligently, the patentee must now show that the infringer acted despite an obvious and objectively high likelihood that its actions would constitute infringement of a valid patent.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

7 minute read

May 23, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, review recent eye-popping decisions that stemmed the perceived tide of unworthy obvious patented inventions, limited the extraterritorial reach of U.S. patent law, confirmed that common sense may reflect obviousness, and more.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

15 minute read

July 25, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Milbank Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, write that the Patent Reform Act of 2007 proposes several important changes to U.S. patent law: conversion to a first-to-file system, modifications related to damages apportionment and willful infringement, and creation of a post-grant inter partes proceeding in the PTO in which a party could challenge the validity of a patent.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

14 minute read

May 28, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Robert C. Scheinfeld And Parker H. Bagley

7 minute read

May 26, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld, a partner at Baker Botts, and Parker H. Bagley, a partner at Goodwin Procter, write that the Federal Circuit recently clarified who, exactly, owes the PTO a duty of candor during the patent application process and granted a petition for rehearing en banc to clarify the framework presently used by district courts in determining whether to render patents unenforceable.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

9 minute read