Litigation Issues Relevant To Patent Prosecution: The Defense of Inequitable Conduct
Jeanne Curtis, a Partner at Ropes & Gray, sent in this article she wrote with her colleagues discussing the defense of inequitable conduct and the recent Federal Circuit holdings pertaining to the doctrine. Curtis will speaking at PLI’s Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing on June 17, 2011. The following is an excerpt from the article:
I. INTRODUCTION
All patent applicants have a duty to prosecute their applications with “candor and good faith.” This duty of candor also extends beyond mere applicants, further covering individuals who are “substantively involved in preparation or prosecution of the application,” including named inventors and attorneys or agents who help prepare or prosecute the application. The duty does not, however, apply to corporations or institutions unless an individual within the corporation or institution was substantively involved in prosecuting the application.
Compliance with the duty of candor is of paramount importance during prosecution of an application. Any failure to comply with the duty exposes an applicant to a potential finding of inequitable conduct, which carries with it a host of undesirable and potentially expensive consequences. The Federal Circuit has articulated that “[a] patent may be rendered unenforceable for inequitable conduct if an applicant, with intent to mislead or deceive the examiner, fails to disclose material information or submits materially false information to the PTO during prosecution.” (more…)
Reissue & Reexam Live Blog: Ethical Considerations
The last panel of the day – Ethical Considerations in Reissues and Reexaminations. The panel includes Gerald Murphy, Jr., Partner at Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch and Practice Center Contributor, and Barbara Mullin of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Here are some highlights from the panel:
- Reissue and Reexam overlap where the error is overly broad claiming in view of prior art. If patentee becomes aware of prior art that does not invalidate the claims but does raise a substantial new question of patentability and there are no other errors in the patent that render it wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, only option is ex parte reexam. If patentee can identify another error in addition to new prior art, Reissue becomes available.
- Both Reissue and Reexam can give rise to charges of inequitable conduct.
- Patents being reissued and reexamined may present unique issues because: they are often very important, the amount of available “information” potentially material to patentability might be much greater than the information available during the original prosecution, and/or parallel litigation is not unusual. (more…)
02.4.11 | inequitable conduct, Patent Law Institute, posts, Reexamination | Stefanie Levine
Hoffman & Baron: The Current State of Patent Law
During late 2009 – 2010, we saw a significant number of remarkable decisions from the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit that impacted the patent community. From Bilski v. Kappos, to Forest Group v. Bon Tool, to Wyeth v. Kappos, to Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly, just to name a few. The following article discussing these decisions was written by Robert Neuner, Partner with Hoffman & Baron and presenter at PLI’s upcoming 5th Annual Patent Law Institute. Here is an excerpt and a link to the article.
This paper discusses a range of cases decided in late 2009 and 2010 that reflect the current state of the law on issues with which each of us should have at least some familiarity. Having decided Bilski, the Supreme Court has one again exercised its oversight over the Federal Circuit. It will review three Federal Circuit decisions concerning the Bayh-Dole Act and the proofs necessary to establish (a) inducement of infringement and (b) patent invalidity. There is also the blockbuster Myriad case now wending its way to a decision by the Federal Circuit. (more…)
Supplemental Examinations to Consider, Reconsider, or Correct Patent-Related Information
The following article was sent in by Lisa A. Dolak , an Angela S. Cooney Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law and Practice Center Contributor.
A recent legislative proposal would authorize the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to undertake a “supplemental examination” of an issued patent to “consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent.” It would further bar the federal courts from holding a patent unenforceable “on the basis of conduct relating to information” considered during supplemental examination.
The obvious intent of the proposal is to constrain the federal courts’ power to entertain inequitable conduct-based challenges. Its emergence is unsurprising, given the mounting dissatisfaction with the courts’ application of the inequitable conduct doctrine. However, because the bill proposes to provide patent owners a forum for effectively purging the taint associated with undisclosed or misrepresented information, it raises a number of questions, including questions relating to potential disciplinary consequences for practitioners. (more…)
01.3.11 | inequitable conduct, posts, prior art, Reexamination | Stefanie Levine
En Banc Oral Argument In Two Important Patent Cases: Therasense Inequitable Conduct Standard and TiVo Contempt for Attempted Design Around
The following alert was written by our friends at Foley & Lardner.
On November 9, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral argument in two important patent cases. The first, Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 08-1511 et al., concerns whether the current materiality-intent balancing framework for determining inequitable conduct should be modified and, if so, how. The second case, TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 09-1374, concerns the circumstances under which a district court, following a finding of infringement at trial, might then use a contempt proceeding, instead of a new trial, to determine whether a newly accused device infringes.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 08-1511 et al. — Inequitable Conduct
Under the current standard, patent unenforceability based on inequitable conduct — whether a patent applicant somehow breached his duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO during prosecution — is frequently asserted by accused patent infringers as a defense to infringement. The Federal Circuit has previously expressed concerns that inequitable conduct is invoked too often. In Therasense, the court could make it more difficult to assert the defense in future cases. (more…)
11.11.10 | Ethics, inequitable conduct, Patent Litigation, posts, USPTO | Stefanie Levine
No Comments
05.12.11 | inequitable conduct, Patent Litigation, Patent Prosecution, posts | Stefanie Levine