Declarant’s Intentional Misrepresentation Not Remedied By Contradictory Supporting Exhibits

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.