{"id":1356,"date":"2016-12-15T22:28:01","date_gmt":"2016-12-16T03:28:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1356"},"modified":"2016-12-20T00:02:42","modified_gmt":"2016-12-20T05:02:42","slug":"invention-must-inevitably-result-to-be-anticipated-by-inherency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1356","title":{"rendered":"Invention Must Inevitably Result to be Anticipated by Inherency"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In\u00a0<em>U.S. Water Services, Inc., v. Novozymes A\/S<\/em>, [2015-1950, 2015-1967] (December 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment of anticipation, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment of no inequitable conduct.<\/p>\n<p>The patents relate to methods of\u00a0reducing fouling in fermentation equipment through the use of phytase. \u00a0The district court found the claims inherently anticipated. \u00a0The Federal Circuit cautioned that inherency may not be established by\u00a0probabilities or possibilities, and said that the mere fact that a certain\u00a0thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not\u00a0sufficient. \u00a0The inherent result must inevitably result from the disclosed steps.<\/p>\n<p>While the prior art disclosed the use of phytase in fermentation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in\u00a0finding no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether\u00a0the patents-in-suit were inherently anticipated because\u00a0the prior art discloses the conditions that will necessarily\u00a0result in phytase reducing deposits. \u00a0In particular the district court erred in deeming irrelevant evidence that practicing the prior art will not\u00a0<em>always<\/em> result in deposit reduction. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found a genuine dispute as to\u00a0a material fact remained and that, consequently, the district court improperly granted summary judgment on\u00a0inherent anticipation.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the denial of Summary Judgment of\u00a0no inequitable conduct. A party seeking to prove inequitable conduct must<br \/>\nshow\u00a0that the patent applicant made misrepresentations<br \/>\nor omissions material to patentability, that he did sowith the specific intent to mislead or deceive the\u00a0USPTO, and that deceptive intent was the single most\u00a0reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found no genuine dispute about this material fact. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that the record contains no suggestion that, but-for the disclosures\u00a0the examiner\u00a0would not have issued the patents-in-suit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In\u00a0U.S. Water Services, Inc., v. Novozymes A\/S, [2015-1950, 2015-1967] (December 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment of anticipation, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment of no inequitable conduct. The patents relate to methods of\u00a0reducing fouling in fermentation &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1356\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[42,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anticipation","category-inequitable-conduct"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1356","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=1356"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1356\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1357,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1356\/revisions\/1357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}