In the United States, patent applicants and their counsel owe a duty of candor and good faith to the Patent Office. This duty is breached when the applicant or its counsel knowingly fails to disclose material prior art references prior to issuance. Where threshold levels of materiality of the reference and intent to conceal are found, a holding that inequitable conduct has occurred renders every claim in the offending patent unenforceable, a consequence that has often been characterized as ‘‘the ‘atomic bomb’ of patent law.’’

Prior to the landmark Therasense holding in 2011, courts had used a sliding scale to determine whether the requisite factual showing of materiality and intent had both been met, whereby a reduced showing of intent nonetheless could be salvaged by a strong showing of materiality, and vice versa.

Originally published in Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report, 11 PLIR 482, 04/12/2013.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  America Invents Act, Deceptive Intent, Disclosure Requirements, Failure to Report, Good Faith, Inequitable Conduct, Patent Litigation, Patent Reform, Patents, Prior Art, Rosuvastatin, USPTO

Published In: Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »