Results for Materiality

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

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0263

Date: 08.09.2010

Information that directly contradicts an applicant’s statements, even if not prior art, is most likely material and should not be excluded from submission to the Examiner for consideration. For a finding of intent, a court must provide detailed factual findings with respect to crucial facts. Joint infringement can only be found if there is sufficient evidence for a finding or inference of “control” or “direction.”

view Case Detail Download PDF

McKesson Info. Sol’ns v. Bridge Med.

Case Number: CLB0145

Date: 05.18.2007

A patentee commits inequitable conduct by failing to cite material prior art discovered by one examiner in a co-pending case before a different examiner, by failing to cite a rejection of a “substantially similar” claim to a different examiner or by failing to cite an allowance of related claims by the same examiner in a continuation application.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Intirtool Ltd. v. Texar Corp.

Case Number: CLB0064

Date: 05.10.2004

Intirtool’s patent on pliers for punching and connecting overlapping sheets of metal is not invalid for failing to comply with written description requirement because a claim’s preamble should only be read as limiting when it recites additionally structure or steps underscored as important by the specification. Also, because the Federal Circuit does not read the preamble as a limitation, there cannot be inequitable conduct because there is neither materiality nor falsity. Finally, Intirtool is not barred by latches because the latches clock cannot start until a pantentee has constructive or actual knowledge of an act of infringement that gives rise to a legal claim.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0078

Date: 12.01.1988

Finding that particular conduct amounts to “gross negligence” does not justify inference of intent to deceive unless involved conduct, viewed in light of all evidence, including evidence indicative of good faith, indicates sufficient culpability to require finding of deceptive intent, and ultimate question of whether inequitable conduct occurred is equitable in nature and as such is reviewed by appellate court under abuse of discretion standard; final determination that inequitable conduct occurred in relation to one or more claims renders entire patent unenforceable.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Case Number: CLB0048

Date: 01.05.2004

Plaintiffs’ patents directed to compositions that claim pain control over four-fold dosage range in approximately 90 percent of patients are unenforceable for inequitable conduct during prosecution, since plaintiffs’ repeated assertion that inventors’ “surprisingly discovered” that pain could be relieved over this claimed reduced dosage range was deliberate decision to represent mere “expectation” or “insight” as precisely quantified “result” or “discovery.”

view Case Detail Download PDF

Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Promega Corp.

Case Number: CLB0006

Date: 03.31.2003

Inequitable conduct was found based upon the presentation of an example in the past tense when the example had never been performed as written. The court found that the misrepresentation was made with an intent to deceive and was material to patentability, despite the failure of the claims to recite the misrepresented subject matter.

view Case Detail Download PDF