Interference No. 103,435
while he was a consultant at Allergan and thus have determined
that the Junior party has failed to establish that Larry Blake
derived the invention from the Junior party. As such, the
first rationale advanced by the Junior party to prove
inequitable conduct fails. As for the allegation that the
Senior party had constructive notice of the invention by
virtue of the Knobbe firms representation of the Senior party
and the Junior party contemporaneously, we are unconvinced
that the actions of the Knobbe law firm should be attributed
to the Senior party. In addition, it is our view that the
Junior party has failed to prove an intent to deceive or
mislead the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
as there is no evidence that establishes that any person at
the Knobbe law firm, much less the Senior party Larry Blake,
had an intent to deceive or mislead the PTO. The presence of
the Larry Blake brochure in the Christ file does not itself
establish this intent because there is no evidence of how it
got there and who knew it was there. After all, the brochure
could have been placed there in error by the clerical staff at
the Knobbe firm.
29
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007