No evidence of intent to deceive, no inequitable conduct In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment of inequitable conduct against the patentee. At issue was whether the patentee's failure to disclose a letter describing an aspect of the prior art constituted inequitable conduct. The court reversed finding that the alleged infringer had failed to provide sufficient […] Continue Reading →
Finding of inequitable conduct without considering materiality vacated In a decision on Friday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement and subsequent finding of inequitable conduct. The court also vacated the district court's exceptional case finding and the associated award of attorney's fees.The plaintiff was initially awarded partial summary judgment of infringement of six patents. The district […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit provides more post-KSR guidance for obviousness for chemical compounds In a decision Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision finding asserted claims of a patent valid and enforceable. Specifically, the court affirmed a finding that the asserted claims were nonobvious as a matter of law, and that the evidence did not support a finding of inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit, applying KSR […] Continue Reading →
Failure to consider evidence of good faith leads to reversal of inequitable conduct finding In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of no infringement and invalidity for obviousness, and reversed the district court's finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.The Federal Circuit, citing KSR, noted that an obviousness analysis can take account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill […] Continue Reading →
Finding of inequitable conduct affirmed, Judge Rader expresses concern over resurgence of defense In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of inequitable conduct resulting from Rule 132 declarations that were used to overcome obviousness and anticipation rejections. The declarations used a difference in half-lives to distinguish the claimed composition over the prior art, however, it failed to indicate that the comparative half-lives were […] Continue Reading →
License under method patent not limited to use with licensor’s products absent express limitation In a decision Wednesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and reversed-in-part a district court's decision regarding two patents. The district court held the broadest claims of both patents invalid and not infringed, and dismissed claims of inequitable conduct relating to the patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to one patent, but vacated and reversed […] Continue Reading →
Denial of injunction against sending letters asserting infringement affirmed In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent a patentee from representing to the defendant's customers that the defendant's product potentially infringed the plaintiff's patent. The patent at issue had a lengthy and complicated prosecution history that included an interference proceeding. In that proceeding, the BPAI […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit: And can mean or, if it makes the claim make sense In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's permanent injunction against a defendant to prevent infringement of a patent. The district court held the patent not invalid and infringed, based in part on a claim construction that construed the word "and" to mean "or." Specifically, based on the specification and other […] Continue Reading →
Section 121 safe harbor applies only to divisional, not continuation-in-part; later patent invalid In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit construed the scope of § 121's allowances for subsequent patent applications directed toward nonelected inventions in response to a restriction requirement. There were three patents at issue, one directed to pharmaceutical compounds, one to compositions containing those compounds, and a third covering methods of suing the compounds. […] Continue Reading →
Disclosure of prior art abstract only when more relevant detail known results in inequitable conduct In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of inequitable conduct based on nondisclosure of details of a poster presentation presented at a scientific conference. While the patentee disclosed the abstract during prosecution of the patents-in-suit, notes taken by one of the patentee's employees with much more detail of what was […] Continue Reading →