Summary judgement of equitable estoppel inappropriate where there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the evidence

Ferring B.V. v. Allergan was decided on November 10, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. In September 2002, Ferring filed a PCT Application for its drug formulation, naming 6 inventors, including Fein, a consultant for Ferring. Fein “conceived the sublingual route of administration.” Two months later, …

Withheld offer for sale renders patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct

GS CleanTech v. Adkins Energy was decided on March 2, 2020 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. The Patents-in-Suit are “directed to the recovery of oil from a dry mill ethanol plant’s byproduct, called thin stillage.” The district court determined on summary judgment that defendant Adkins did not …

Federal Circuit on finding materiality for inequitable conduct after Therasense

To prevail on the defense of inequitable conduct, the accused infringer must prove that the applicant misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO. Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (en banc). The accused infringer must prove both elements — intent and materiality — by clear and convincing evidence. Id. A district court should not use a …

A patent remedies case study on Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Bruce Saffran, M.D., Ph.D., and Boston Scientific Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Cordis, and Abbott Laboratories. The lawsuits are Saffran v. Boston Scientific, Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, et. al., and Saffran v. Abbott Laboratories. Each lawsuit relates to …

Plaintiff did not intend to deceive the PTO in misdiscribing a figure

Barry v. Medtronic was decided on January 24, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found for plaintiff Barry and awarded $15,095,970 for domestic infringement of one patent and $2,625,210 for domestic infringement of another patent. After trial, the district court denied defendant Medtronic’s challenges regarding induced infringement, …

It was error to award all requested fees without causal connection between the misconduct and the award

Rembrandt v. Comcast was decided on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After several years of litigation by plaintiff Rembrandt “against dozens of cable companies, cable equipment manufacturers, and broadcast networks,” the district court “entered final judgment against Rembrandt as to all claims.” After an adverse claim construction, …

Courts may deny fees after finding inequitable conduct but must explain

Energy Heating v. Heat On-The-Fly was decided on May 4, 2018 on appeal from the District of North Dakota. Before trial, the district court granted summary judgment in declaratory plaintiff Energy’s favor, dismissing some of declaratory defendant Heat’s infringement claims, and finding Heat’s asserted patent obvious. The jury found liability under …

Misconduct during prosecution and litigation supports finding of unclean hands for asserted patents

Gilead v. Merck was decided on April 25, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After the jury ruled for Merck and awarded $200 million in damages, the district court held a bench trial on Gilead’s unclean hands defense. The district court ruled for Gilead, “finding both pre-litigation business misconduct and litigation …

No Walker Process violation because there was no showing of intent to deceive the PTO

Alfred T. Giuliano v. SanDisk is a non-precedential case decided on July 27, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after Plaintiffs brought a Walker Process antitrust class action against SanDisk, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SanDisk because the record did not show evidence sufficient to raise …

Post hoc litigation misconduct supports adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO

Regeneron v. Merus was decided on July 27, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held the asserted patent invalid because of plaintiff Regeneron’s inequitable conduct during prosecution. The district court first found that Regeneron withheld four references from the USPTO that were material. (The withheld references …