Category Archives: Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56

BIO’s Modest Proposal – Eliminate Rule 56

BIO recently sent Director Kappos 13 pages of comments on the PTO’s proposed revisions to 37 C.F.R. §1.56(b). (A copy of the comments is available at the end of this post.) BIO clearly is struggling to reconcile the differing views  … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Powell v. Home Depot – False Petition Not “Egregious Misconduct”

In Therasense, the Fed. Cir. held that inequitable conduct can be based on non-prior art misconduct, which was characterized as an exception to the “but-for” rule of materiality set out in the decision. This seemed to me to be a … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Cordis v. BSC – Therasense at Work

Last week the Fed. Cir. affirmed the district court’s finding of no inequitable conduct, due to the failure of the applicant or his attorney to cite a relevant prior art reference in a parent application that yielded the two patents-in-suit. … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Inequitable Conduct in Canada – Disarming the “Atomic Bomb”

This is a guest post from Brian W. Gray of Norton Rose. This week a significant decision for patent owners was released from our Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. A copy of the case is found at the end of … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment