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

Business Methods and Patent-Eligibility at the USPTO
September 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm EDT
During the webinar, Charles Bieneman will discuss recent trends and current practices with respect to patent-eligibility at the USPTO’s business methods arts units – including a looks at how some cases are surviving Section 101 rejections. Register

Subscribe