{"id":135,"date":"2014-08-15T22:55:54","date_gmt":"2014-08-16T02:55:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=135"},"modified":"2014-08-16T23:51:34","modified_gmt":"2014-08-17T03:51:34","slug":"fraud-is-alive-and-well-after-therasense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=135","title":{"rendered":"Fraud is Alive and Well after Therasense"},"content":{"rendered":"

Although the stringent “but for” test of materiality of Therasense has made it difficult to show inequitable conduct, in Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc.<\/em>, 2013-1674 (Fed. Cir. 2014) the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct.\u00a0 After finding materilaity, i.e., that thepatent would not have been allowed but for misconduct, the Federal Circuit went out of its way to point out that there is no\u00a0duty to disclose\u00a0suspicions or beliefs regarding the prior art.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that there is nothing wrong with advocating, in good faith, a reasonable interpretation of the teachings of the prior art.\u00a0 However the Federal Circuit found that the misconduct at issue, however, goes beyond failing to disclose a personal belief or alternative interpretations of the prior art; but consisted of\u00a0affirmatively and knowingly misrepresenting material facts regarding the prior art.\u00a0 In fact, the Federal Circuit found that the case comes close to the type of affirmative misconduct that in Therasense we held could justify finding inequitable conduct without showing but-for materiality.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit found the conduct conduct evidences a pattern of lack of candor, and agreed with the district court that deceptive intent was the single most reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Although the stringent “but for” test of materiality of Therasense has made it difficult to show inequitable conduct, in Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc., 2013-1674 (Fed. Cir. 2014) the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct.\u00a0 After finding materilaity, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inequitable-conduct"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=135"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":136,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135\/revisions\/136"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}