Interference No. 103,435
inequitable conduct on the part of its opponent bears a burden
of proving its case by clear and convincing evidence. Refac
Int’l, Ltd. v. Lotus Dev. Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 1581, 38 USPQ2d
1665, 1669 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In the present case, we note
that the
court in Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d at 1181, 33
USPQ2d at 1829 stated:
Thus, the alleged conduct must not
amount merely to the improper performance
of, or omission of, an act one ought to
have performed. Rather, clear and
convincing evidence must prove that an
applicant had the specific intent to
accomplish an act that the applicant ought
not to have performed, viz., misleading or
deceiving the PTO. In a case involving
nondisclosure of information, clear and
convincing evidence must show that the
applicant made a deliberate decision to
withhold a known material reference.
We have determined that the Junior party has failed to
establish that the invention was communicated to Larry Blake
28
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007