As early as the 1930s, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that there must be some severe consequence where a patent applicant deliberately violated its duty of candor and good faith to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in submitting information to gain allowance of a patent.1
The Supreme Court borrowed principles from common law fraud in deciding how to deal with such conduct,2 specifically, ruling that the resulting patent would be unenforceable if there were proof that the patent applicant made material misrepresentations or omissions with specific intent to deceive the PTO, and that the PTO relied on those actions in determining to allow the patent application.3
This content has been archived.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]
