Inequitable Conduct After Therasense: Definitely Harder to Prove

Specific intent to deceive the USPTO did not exist where an inventor removed mention of a reference from his patent application, and then testified that the "reference was cumulative or merely provided background information."  Imura International U.S.A., Inc. v. HR Technology, Inc., No. 08-2220 (D. Kans. April 24, 2012).  The party asserting inequitable conduct also failed to show materiality under the but-for standard of Therasense.  This case is worth noting as yet another example of how Therasense has had a tangible, limiting impact on assertions of inequitable conduct.  Asserting inequitable conduct is unquestionably a harder defense to succeed upon than it used to be.

Upcoming Webinar

Practical Considerations of IPR Estoppel
June 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm EDT
In the webinar, Bryan Hart will discuss estoppel stemming from inter partes review petitions. After an IPR, what invalidity arguments can the petitioner still use at trial? Bryan will analyze the Federal Circuit decision Shaw Industries Group, Inc.…Register

Subscribe