Inequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose · Inequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose Tonya...
Transcript of Inequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose · Inequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose Tonya...
Inequitable Conduct and the Duty to Disclose
Tonya DrakeMarch 2, 2010
2
Inequitable conduct
Defense to patent infringement– A finding of inequitable conduct will render a patent
unenforceable– Claims may still be valid, but be unenforceable
3
Inequitable conduct allegations
Inequitable Conduct litigation “has become an absolute plague.” –Dickson Indus. (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Percentage of cases including an allegation of inequitable conduct
0.00%5.00%
10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Source: Christian E. Mammen, Controlling the “Plague”: Reforming The Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2009
4
Federal Circuit decisions
02468
1012141618
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Num
ber o
f dec
isio
ns Inequitable Conduct
No Inequitable Conduct
Finding Vacated(remanded to districtcourt)
Source: Christian E. Mammen, Controlling the “Plague”: Reforming The Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2009
5
Inequitable conduct and the duty to disclose
Breach of the duty to disclose is the foundation of many inequitable conduct allegationsRule 56 sets out the duty to disclose
6
Rule 56 – the duty to disclose
Who? – Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of
a patent application
What? – Material information - information a reasonable examiner
would consider important
Why?– Examination is more effective when the examiner is aware
of and evaluates all information material to patentability
7
Two part test – materiality and intent
Requires proof of:1) an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact, failure to
disclose material information, or submission of false material information
2) by that act intended to deceive the patent office
8
Balancing of materiality and intent
Equitable balancing of materiality and intent– “when balanced against high materiality, the showing of
intent can be proportionally less” Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Was conduct was so culpable that the patent should be held unenforceable?
9
Materiality
Reasonable examiner standard – What would a reasonable examiner consider important in
deciding whether to allow the application?
Rule 56 standard– Establishes a prima facie case of unpatentability or – Refutes, or is inconsistent with positions taken by the
applicant
Not cumulative
10
Examples of possibly material information
Highly relevant prior art Information that contradicts statements to the patent officeInformation of prior salesCo-pending applicationsRejections of substantially similar claimsReferences and office actions from related applicationsRelated litigation information
11
Intent to deceive
Evidence must show intent to deceive– Gross negligence alone is not sufficient– Intent to withhold a reference is not sufficient
However, intent to deceive may be proven by circumstantial evidenceGood faith should be considered
12
Dayco v. Total Containment – 2003
Overview: A contrary decision of another examiner can be material even when included in an office action in a co-pending application in a separate family
– The office action was from an application with no priority relationship to the patent in suit
– The applicant had not disclosed either the co-pendency or the adverse office action
13
McKesson v. Bridge Medical – 2007Overview: An office action in a substantively related (not by priority) co-pending application can be material
– Examiner was aware of the fact of the co-pendent prosecution, but was not specifically notified of the office action
BUT - the district court characterized the prosecuting attorney’s testimony as “not credible,” contradicted by the evidence, and undermined by his own prior testimony
14
Larson v. Aluminart - 2009
Overview: Actions from related co-pending applications can be material even when co-pendency has been disclosed and the office actions discuss only cumulative art
15
Larson v. Aluminart
16
Larson: Materiality
Why were the 3rd and 4th office actions material?– Not simply “boilerplate reiterations of previous rejections”– The 3rd Office Action was the first to convey a specific
explanation about a reference – Later withdraw of 3rd rejection did not change materiality
17
Larson - Guidance on intent
Instructed the district court to "take into account any evidence of good faith, which militates against a finding of deceptive intent" Directed the district court to consider that the patentee had disclosed the co-pending application and the 1st and 2nd office actions
18
Larson - Summary
Office actions from related, co-pending applications can be material to prosecution even where:
– the fact of the co-pendency has been disclosed, and – the office actions discuss only cumulative art
Notifying the examiner of related prosecution and disclosing earlier documents from that related prosecution evinces good faith
19
Practice Tips
Doubts about whether information, including office actions, should be disclosed should be resolved in favor of disclosureIf applications are co-pending, notify the examiner of their co-pendency
– However, merely disclosing the existence of co-pending applications or related proceedings is not necessarily sufficient
Keep close track of ongoing prosecution in US and foreign counterparts
– Consider citing references and office actions from related cases
20
Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson - 2010
Overview: statements made to the European Patent Office during a proceeding involving the European counterpart of another patent family were material
21
Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson
‘551 Patent
EPO Counterpart
Revocation Proceeding“optionally, but
preferably”
‘382 Patent
Com
mon
Inventors
22
Therasense
The statements made to the EPO were material– The statements made to the EPO contradicted the
statements made to the USPTO
The attorney read the EPO decision and “knew or should have known that the withheld information would have been highly material to the [USPTO] examiner”Federal Circuit affirmed findings of both materiality and intent
23
Therasense - inequitable conduct should be rare
Although the court affirmed the finding of inequitable conduct, it noted that such a finding should be “rare”Judge Linn, Dissent: “…the individuals subjectively believed that the withheld information was immaterial when they withheld it”
24
Practice Tips
Be particularly vigilant when submitting affidavits – Carefully review relevant documents and publications to
ensure that any affidavit is complete and accurate
Keep close track of continuations, divisionals, and foreign counterparts
– Do not take inconsistent positions in different jurisdictions– Consider centralized prosecution of patent families
25
Can you disclose too much?
Over citation can also result in allegations of inequitable conduct Burying a material reference is unlikely to satisfy the intent prong
26
Guidance for prosecutors
Resolve doubts in favor of disclosureSet up a standard procedureDon’t rely on the procedure to avoid citing artConsider consolidating patent prosecution or having someone responsible for distribution of informationOnly file patent applications in jurisdictions of value
Thank YouTonya Drake
AssociateFish & Richardson P.C.
Special Thanks To
Frank Gerratana and Proshanto Mukherjifor their help preparing this presentation