Category Archives: Inequitable Conduct

Failure to disclose pre-critical date offer for sale was inequitable conduct, DC decision affirmed

Posted on March 4, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

GS Cleantech, Cantor Colburn LLP v. Adkins Energy LLC, Big River Resources et al. Docket No. 2016-2231, -1838, 2017-1832 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES March 2, 2020 Brief Summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct for failure to disclose pre-critical date offer for … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, On-Sale Bar, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Posted on January 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2463 PROST, MOORE, TARANTO January 24, 2019 Brief summary: DC and jury conclusions of no invalidity and infringement affirmed (e.g., the invention was not in “public use” as the use was experimental, no § 102(b) on-sale bar, no … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Conception and Reduction to Practice, Experimental Use, Inducement to Infringe, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement, Preamble, Public Use | Tagged | Leave a comment

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.

Posted on August 31, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2102 REYNA, BRYSON, HUGHES August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Jury finding of infringement and no invalidity of CW’s ‘151 claim affirmed but “implied waiver” / unenforceability arguments remanded; finding of infringement of ‘536 claim reversed. Summary: Apple appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement | Leave a comment

In re: Rembrandt Technologies LP et al. v. Comcast et al.

Posted on August 23, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1784 O’MALLEY, MAYER, REYNA August 15, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding this litigation exceptional under § 285 affirmed; $51 million fee award vacated and remanded as the DC “awarded all fee fees with no explanation whatsoever of a..causal … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Nichia Corporation et al.

Posted on January 10, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2016-1577, -1611 WALLACH, CHEN, HUGHES January 5, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding that jury obviousness determination was supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion that the requisite intent for inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: Everlight brought DJ suit … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.

Posted on December 28, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1346 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH July 27, 2017 Update (Dec. 26, 2017): Petition for rehearing en banc denied; Judges Newman and Reyna dissented, concerned that under this decision “inequitable conduct in patent prosecution can be retrospectively imposed by ‘adverse … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (“Kraft”) v. Kellogg North America Co. et al.

Posted on September 15, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

2016-2082, -2084 PROST, REYNA (D), TARANTO September 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ for obviousness and no inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: Kraft appealed grant of SJ to Kellogg of invalidity for obviousness of the asserted claims of Kraft’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.

Posted on August 2, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1346 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH July 27, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct based on “adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO”, perhaps due in part to litigation misconduct, affirmed. Summary: Regneron appealed DC holding … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment

U.S. Water Services, Inc., Roy Johnson v. Novozymes A/S et al.

Posted on December 22, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1950, -1967 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL December 15, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for invalidity (inherent anticipation) reversed; grant of SJ of no inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: U.S. Water (USW) appealed DC grant of SJ to Novozymes … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inequitable Conduct, Inherency | Leave a comment

The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps South, LLC

Posted on March 8, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1132, -1133 NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES February 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC finding of inequitable conduct affirmed. Summary: This appeal follows an earlier decision remanding part of the case against Alps for trial (Ohio Willow Wood, FC 2013). OWW’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Inequitable Conduct | Leave a comment