Interference No. 103,435
conducted experiments in which haptics were treated with
plasma. The Senior party argues that the Junior
party has not proven that any individual had knowledge that
the Christ disclosure was
in the Knobbe office or that any individual had an intent to
deceive the PTO.
A determination of inequitable conduct is committed to
our discretion. Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular
Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). In order to convince us to exercise our
discretion and hold that conduct amounts to “inequitable
conduct,” a party must show that its opponent:
(1) made an affirmative misrepresentation of fact or
failed to disclose a fact;
(2) the fact misrepresented or not disclosed was
material; and
(3) the misrepresentation or failure to disclose was done
with an intent to deceive or mislead the Patent and Trademark
Office. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178, 33
USPQ2d 1823, 1826 (Fed. Cir. 1955). The party alleging
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007