1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Declarant’s Intentional Misrepresentation Not Remedied By Contradictory Supporting Exhibits

Declarant’s Intentional Misrepresentation Not Remedied By Contradictory Supporting Exhibits

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.26.07

In eSpeed, Inc. v. Brokertec USA, L.L.C., (No. 06-1385; March 20, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s judgment declaring a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. eSpeed submitted three declarations and 1139 pages of supporting exhibits disclosing a prior system implemented by eSpeed. One of the declarations stated that the prior system did not include computer code that implements particular trading rules. The supporting exhibits, however, disclosed that the system included computer code for implementing those trading rules. Rejecting eSpeed’s argument the contradictory supporting exhibits vitiated the materiality of the false statements, the Federal Circuit holds that these false statements left the examiner with the impression that further investigation into the operation of the system was not required.

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)....

View All Insights