- 24 -
technical art which existed at the time that the claimed invention
was conceived. He also stated that a patent will be unenforceable
where the patent applicant has engaged in inequitable conduct before
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; i.e., where the applicant
breaches the duty of candor and good faith by failing to disclose
all material information concerning the patentability of the
invention.
After examining the circumstances surrounding the issuance of
the Amoco patents, Mr. Lutzker concluded that there was "strong
evidence" that both patents were unenforceable due to Mr. Podd's
failure to disclose material prior art to the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. He further concluded that a "strong argument"
could be made that both patents were invalid because certain prior
art renders each claim of the patents obvious.
ii. Robert Goldscheider
Mr. Goldscheider received his B.S. in economics from Columbia
University in 1951 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1954. He
has more than 35 years of experience in the licensing field and is a
frequent lecturer on problems involving the transfer and
commercialization of technology.
Mr. Goldscheider's expert report and his rebuttal report were
limited to the issue of a reasonable royalty rate for a license of
the Amoco patents. He indicated that the issues of "patentability
and enforceability" of the patents were outside the scope of his
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011