{"id":148,"date":"2014-09-26T22:26:15","date_gmt":"2014-09-27T02:26:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=148"},"modified":"2014-09-26T22:26:34","modified_gmt":"2014-09-27T02:26:34","slug":"art-that-did-not-invalidate-is-still-material","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=148","title":{"rendered":"Art That Did Not Invalidate Can Still Be Material"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <em>American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.<\/em>, 2013-1061 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct for failing a disclose a reference, even though the patent was found\u00a0valid over that reference.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit explained that district courts and the PTO employ different evidentiary standards and rules for claim construction. Therefore, \u201ceven if a district court does not invalidate a claim based on a deliberately withheld reference, the reference may be material if it would have blocked patent issuance under the PTO\u2019s different evidentiary standards.\u201d <em>citing<\/em> <em>Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &amp; Co.<\/em>, 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).\u00a0 Thus the Federal Circuit concluded that the\u00a0jury\u2019s verdict finding the patents at issue non-obvious thus does <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">not<\/span> weigh on the determination of materiality for inequitable conduct.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2013-1061 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct for failing a disclose a reference, even though the patent was found\u00a0valid over that reference.\u00a0 The Federal &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=148\">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":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148","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\/148","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=148"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":150,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148\/revisions\/150"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}