Federal Circuit Affirms that Litigation Misconduct May Serve as a Basis to Infer Specific Intent to Deceive the PTO
Recent Publications
5 IP Rules to Know to Protect Your Business in the United States (article in French)
Coaching INPI Newsletter
Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.
1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.
Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
? Regeneron Pharma., Inc. v. Merus N.V., (Fed. Cir., July 27, 2017) (before Prost, Newman and Wallach, J.) (opinion by Prost).
Under the Federal Circuit’s holding in Therasense, inequitable conduct has two separate requirements: “materiality” and “intent.” The materiality required to establish inequitable conduct is “but-for” materiality—meaning that if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of an undisclosed prior art reference, then that undisclosed reference is but-for material to the question of inequitable conduct. To satisfy the intent requirement under Therasense, the accused infringer must prove that the patentee acted with “specific intent” to deceive the PTO. In a case involving nondisclosure of information to the Office, clear and convincing evidence must show that the applicant made a deliberate decision to withhold a known material reference.
A central issued faced by the Court in Regeneron Pharma was whether the specific intent required to establish inequitable conduct can be inferred from the patentee’s litigation misconduct during infringement proceedings. Under Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., an inference of intent to deceive is appropriate where the applicant engages in a “pattern of lack of candor,” including where the applicant repeatedly makes factual representations “contrary to the true information he had in his possession.” 763 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 20014).
In Regeneron Pharma, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to sanction the patentee by drawing an adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO—based in part on the Regeneron’s discovery misconduct throughout the litigation. The lower court concluded that there were three categories of documents that presented serious concerns of discovery misconduct.
1. Non-privileged documents that were not produced and instead resided throughout litigation on the privilege log (e.g., numerous Excel spreadsheets with scientific test results, third party filings to the PTO, and fact statements by non-lawyers not seeking legal advice);
2. Previously privileged documents as to which Regeneron affirmatively waived the privilege by disclosing them, and that the district court ordered by produced pursuant to its Order; and
3. Documents on the privilege log relating to precisely those topics waived by Regeneron when it filed trial declarations of certain witnesses.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court’s finding that the failure of the patentee to adequately comply with discovery orders warranted an adverse inference of the specific intent needed to establish inequitable conduct. The Court also agreed with the district court’s finding that alternative measures to address the patentee’s misconduct would have significantly increased the time and cost for both Merus and the district court—thereby imposing an unfair burden.
Coaching INPI Newsletter