Inequitable Conduct

Inequitable conduct is a defence that renders an entire patent unenforceable where the applicant breached the duty of candour owed to the Patent Office. Since the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Therasense the standard has been demanding: the accused infringer must prove both that the withheld information or misrepresentation was but-for material and that the applicant acted with specific intent to deceive, and intent may not be inferred merely from materiality. The defence must also be pleaded with particularity, which makes motions to dismiss it common. The opinions collected here address pleading sufficiency, the evidence required at summary judgment and trial, and the consequences of a finding.

205 opinions and orders, showing 201–205.

• April 4, 2005 Fed. Cir. Bayer AG. ET AL. v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, No. 04-1194 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2005) Vacated & Remanded
• February 22, 2005 Fed. Cir. Evident Corp. v. Church & Dwight Co., No. 03-1541 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2005) Affirmed
• January 19, 2005 Fed. Cir. Rosco v. Mirror Lite, No. 03-1562 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2005) Reversed in Part
• January 11, 2005 Fed. Cir. Bruno Independent Living Aids v. Acorn Mobility Services Ltd, No. 04-1114 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2005) Affirmed
• December 10, 2004 Fed. Cir. Alza Corporation, ET AL. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., ET AL., No. 04-1344 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2004) Affirmed in Part