Interference No. 104,403
failing to list them as prior art. Rosenthal further argues that the
Rosenthal patents were the closest prior art to the invention of the
Magee patent applications.
A determination of whether there has been inequitable conduct is
committed to our discretion. Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular
Access, 120 F.3d 1253, 1255, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A party alleging inequitable conduct on the part of its opponent bears a
burden of proving its case by clear and convincing evidence. Refrac
Int’l Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 1581, 38 USPQ2d
1665, 1669 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
“Inequitable conduct includes affirmative misrepresentations of a
material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of
false material information coupled with an intent to deceive.”
PerSeptive Biosystems, Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech, Inc., 225 F.3d 1315,
1318, 56 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
“Applied to patent prosecution, inequitable conduct or fraud
requires (1) a false representation or deliberate omission of a fact
material to patentability, (2) made with the intent to deceive the patent
examiner, (3) on which the examiner justifiably relied in granting the
patent, and which (4) but for which misrepresentation or deliberate
omission the patent would not have been granted.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v.
53
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007