Results for Inequitable Conduct

The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps South, LLC

Case Number: CLB0365

Date: 02.19.2016

A party seeking to prove inequitable conduct must show by clear and convincing evidence that an applicant made misrepresentations or omissions material to patentability, that the applicant did so with the specific intent to mislead or deceive the USPTO, and that deceptive intent was the single most reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Outside the Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0343

Date: 09.21.2012

It is unresolved whether an incorrect claim of small entity status under 37 C.F.R. § 1.27(a) qualifies as information material to patentability. However, where there is no evidence that small entity status was deliberately falsely claimed, underpayment of the application fee can be remedied by payment of the deficiency, rather than eradication of the patent. If immaterial to the patentability of the application, litigation related to the application need not be disclosed.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0313

Date: 10.09.2013

In correcting a false declaration, the Applicant must expressly advise the PTO of the misrepresentation’s existence, stating specifically where the misrepresentation resides. It does not suffice that when an Applicant knows of misrepresentations, the Applicant merely supplies the PTO with accurate facts without calling his attention to the untrue assertions sought to be overcome.

view Case Detail Download PDF