Interference No. 103,146
See Merck & Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., 873 F.2d 1418,
1422, 10 USPQ2d 1682, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Rather, this
element of inequitable conduct must generally be inferred from
the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants'
overall conduct. See Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Lab.,
Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1190, 25 USPQ2d 1561, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1993); Merck, 873 F.2d at 1422, 10 USPQ2d at 1686. Moreover,
the Federal Circuit has
recognized that the more material the omission, the less the
degree of intent that must be shown to reach a conclusion of
inequitable conduct. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson
Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1256, 43 USPQ2d 1666,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1511 (1998) and
cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1510 (1998); Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1481-82, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1247
(Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 909 (1987).
No single factor or combination of factors
can be said always to require an inference
of intent to mislead; yet a patentee facing
a high level of materiality and clear proof
that it knew or should have known of that
materiality, can expect to find it
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007