In Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave teeth to the pleading requirements for inequitable-conduct claims in patent infringement litigation, holding that “the pleading must identify the specific who, what, when, where and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the” U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Accused infringers must plead specific facts supporting an inequitable-conduct claim and may need to await discovery before asserting those claims.
Parties accused of infringement long have argued that the asserted patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct — such as by alleging that the applicants failed to disclose or misrepresented key prior art to deceive the PTO into granting the patent. This equitable defense is governed by a balancing test in which the court weighs the materiality of the prior art and evidence of the applicant’s intent to deceive the PTO to determine whether there was inequitable conduct. See PerSeptive Biosystems Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech Inc., 225 F.3d 1315, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
