The shadow of inequitable conduct in the US patent application
- PMID: 26810884
- PMCID: PMC4963061
- DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1121339
The shadow of inequitable conduct in the US patent application
Abstract
Inequitable conduct regarding any single claim can render the entire patent unenforceable and further damage other related patents and applications in the assignee's patent portfolio. The adverse impact of inequitable conduct significantly became a litigation strategy. The US Federal Circuit (CAFC) observed that inequitable conduct as a patent litigation strategy had become a plague and thus tightened the standard for finding inequitable conduct in a case with full court judges. However, under the shadow of previous adverse impact of inequitable conduct, patent applicants may still submit many marginal related references. This study demonstrates that an applicant even prepared an information disclosure statement (IDS) as many as 50 pages. Actually, under the new standard, inequitable conduct would not further produce significant impact in the US patent system. Thus, a patent applicant need not submit marginal references but should distinguish the prior art from the current application, especially for those listed in the IDS, to avoid the novelty rejection.
Keywords: inequitable conduct; information disclosure statement; intent; materiality; patent portfolio.
Similar articles
-
Post-Therasense inequitable conduct: a pharmaceutical perspective.Pharm Pat Anal. 2013 Jul;2(4):467-79. doi: 10.4155/ppa.13.29. Pharm Pat Anal. 2013. PMID: 24237124
-
Inventors and their attorneys must beware of their actions before the US Patent and Trademark Office.Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2004 Apr;14(4):453-6. doi: 10.1517/13543776.14.4.453. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2004. PMID: 21793649
-
Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe: complying with the written description requirement under US patent law.Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Jan;21(1):97-9. doi: 10.1038/nbt0103-97. Nat Biotechnol. 2003. PMID: 12511910 No abstract available.
-
Patent disclosure requirements for therapeutic antibody patents.Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2017 Aug;27(8):867-875. doi: 10.1080/13543776.2017.1296950. Epub 2017 Mar 9. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2017. PMID: 28276280 Review.
-
Identification of the factors that result in obviousness rulings for biotech patents: an updated analysis of the US Federal Circuit decisions after KSR.Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013 Nov;9(11):2490-5. doi: 10.4161/hv.25822. Epub 2013 Jul 30. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2013. PMID: 23899509 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Wang S-J. The obviousness rejection as a barrier to biotech patent prosecution. Nat Biotech 2009; 27:1125-1126; PMID:20010590; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1209-1125 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Wang S-J. The obviousness rejection as a barrier to vaccine patent prosecution. Human Vaccines 2011; 7:475-477. - PubMed
-
- Wang S-J. The written description rejection as a barrier to biotech patent prosecution. Human Vaccines 2011; 7:569-573; PMID:21552000; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/hv.7.5.14358 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Durham A. Patent Law Essentials. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1999.
-
- Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. , United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 863 F.2d 867, 1988.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources