CRF Inc. Responds to PHT Corp. Statements on E-Diary Lawsuit.WALTHAM, Mass. & HELSINKI, Finland -- A press release issued by PHT PHT Phenytoin (antiepileptic, Dilantin) PHT Pulmonary Hypertension PhT Pharmacy Technician PHT Post-Harvest Technology PHT Pattern History Table PHT Pressure Half Time PHT Public Health Trust Corporation in which its President and CEO (1) (Chief Executive Officer) The highest individual in command of an organization. Typically the president of the company, the CEO reports to the Chairman of the Board. expressed an "important victory" in its patent infringement patent infringement n. the manufacture and/or use of an invention or improvement for which someone else owns a patent issued by the government, without obtaining permission of the owner of the patent by contract, license or waiver. lawsuit against CRF CRF abbr. chronic renal failure CRF Chronic renal failure Inc., invivodata Inc. and etrials Worldwide, Inc., we believe, is "misleading," according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. Pamela McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of CRF Inc. CRF Inc., the world leader in electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (e-PRO), believes that PHT simply ignores substantial problems regarding the validity of PHT's patent and the fact that the court, in the "Markman" decision, made no findings on the issues of infringement or invalidity. "There are many e-diary prior art references that were not disclosed to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO PTO abbr. 1. Parent Teacher Organization 2. or p.t.o. please turn over 3. power takeoff PTO or pto please turn over Noun 1. ) that provide a very strong case that the claims at issue in the PHT lawsuit are invalid. This is a position consistently taken by others in the market," said McNamara. "We continue to believe that the lawsuit filed by PHT against not only CRF Inc., but other major participants in the market, invivodata and etrials, is a bad faith attempt to influence the market while the case is pending, and those with knowledge of the history of e-diaries and the prior art can readily understand the invalidity of this patent. We see PHT's press release as a continuation of this conduct." In the case, PHT claims that its patent covers a broad range of e-diary technology despite the fact that e-diaries were well known to the public at the time its patent was filed in 1995. PHT did not disclose to the PTO any prior art references regarding e-diaries. Rather, PHT only disclosed prior art references regarding physiological monitors. Accordingly, CRF Inc. believes the record upon which the PTO based its decision to grant the patent was incomplete, and further believes that the patent should be invalidated in light of the undisclosed prior art. Finally, CRF Inc. also points out that the claim construction conducted by the District Court Judge in Delaware is part of the normal patent litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute. When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. process that occurs in all patent cases. The Court made no findings against either party on the issues of infringement or invalidity. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion