THE B2 IP REPORT

Inequitable Conduct After Therasense Does Not Always Require "But-for" Materiality

by Charles Bieneman on March 23rd, 2012

Even under the heightened “but-for” materiality standard for proving inequitable conduct in patent prosecution set forth by the Federal Circuit in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1287 (F… Read More

Categories

35 U.S.C. § 101

35 U.S.C. § 112

35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103

Attorney-client privilege

Cancellations

Claim Construction

Covered Business Method Patent Review

Declaratory Judgments

Diversity

Enhanced Patent Damages / Attorney Fees

Estoppel - Patent

Ex Parte PTAB Appeals

Fair Use

Indefiniteness

Inequitable Conduct

International Trade Commission

Intervening Patent Rights

Miscellaneous

Patent Civil Procedure

Patent Claim Interpretation

Patent Damages

Patent Eligibility

Patent Exhaustion

Patent Experts

Patent Infringement

Patent Licenses

Patent Marking

Patent Prep and Pros Best Practices

Patent Standards

Patent Term Adjustment

Software Licenses

Software Patents

State and Federal Statutes

The Claims Interpreted Report

The Software IP Report

Trade Secrets

Trademarks

TTAB Procedure

USPTO Post-Issue Proceedings

Patent Litigation

Inequitable Conduct After Therasense Does Not Always Require "But-for" Materiality

Subscribe

Categories