1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |270

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 | 7 min read | 09.26.24

Banks and Financial Service Providers Take Note: EU Law on Greenwashing and Social-Washing Is Changing – And It Is Likely Going to Have a Wide Impact

The amount of litigation regarding environmental and climate change issues is, perhaps unsurprisingly, growing worldwide.[1] A significant portion of that litigation relates to so-called ‘greenwashing’, ‘climate-washing’ or ‘social-washing’ disputes. In other words, legal cases where people or organisations (often NGOs and consumer groups) accuse companies, banks, financial institutions or others, of making untrue statements. They argue these companies or financial institutions are pretending their products, services or operations are more environmentally-friendly, sustainable, or ethically ‘good’ for society – than is really the case. Perhaps more interestingly, of all the litigation in the environmental and climate change space – complainants bringing greenwashing and social washing cases have, according to some of these reports, statistically the most chance of winning. So, in a nutshell, not only is greenwashing and social washing litigation on the rise, companies and financial institutions are most likely to lose cases in this area....

View All Insights