270
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.02.06
In M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. (d/b/a S&G Tool Aid Corp.) v. Fishing Tooling Company, Inc. (d/b/a Astro Pneumatic Tool Co., (No. 05-1224, -1228, February 27, 2006) , the Federal Circuit reverses a district court's grant of summary judgment that a patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The summary judgment motion asserted that patent was unenforceable for not disclosing information regarding the 20- year selling of a predecessor product to the PTO. The district court found that the information was material because the predecessor product contained claim limitations that the patent examiner held not to be found in the prior art and inferred an intent to deceive from a lack of good faith explanation for not disclosing that prior sale information.
In reversing, the Federal Circuit panel states that intent to deceive cannot be inferred solely from the fact that information was not disclosed; but that there must be a factual basis for a finding of deceptive intent. That is, a failure to disclose prior art to the patent examiner, where the only evidence of intent is a lack of a good faith explanation for the nondisclosure, cannot by itself constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support a determination of culpable intent. To satisfy the requirement of the intent to deceive element of inequitable conduct, the involved conduct, viewed in light of all the evidence of good faith, must indicate sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to deceive.
[http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/05-1224.pdf].
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
