Advertisement

April 17, 2014

Best Mode Defense’s Last Stand

Addressing the best mode defense for possibly the last time in view of the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the best mode was not concealed if it was within the scope of knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.  Joy Mining Machinery v. Cincinnati Mine Machinery, Case No. 12-1153 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 8, 2012) (Prost, J.) (nonprecedential).

Joy Mining Machinery (Joy MM) alleged that a mining machine used by Cincinnati Mine Machinery (CMM) infringed a patent owned by Joy MM, which claimed a chain and flight assembly that included a drive pin retaining means.  The patent only disclosed welding as a mechanism to implement the drive pin retaining means.  As a result, CMM asserted in its defense that Joy MM concealed press-fitting as the best mode for implementing the drive pin retaining means.  Press-fitting, however, was known to those of skill in the art to be a substitute for welding at the time of the invention, and neither party disagreed on this point. 

The Federal Circuit stated that to establish that the claims failed the best mode requirement, CMM must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the inventor of the patent concealed a best mode of practicing his claimed invention from the public.  The Federal Circuit noted that concealing a best mode of the invention turns on whether the inventor’s disclosure is adequate to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the best mode of the invention.  Since there was no genuine dispute that one of ordinary skill in the art had the requisite knowledge necessary to use press-fitting to implement the drive pin retaining means, the Federal Circuit found that CMM could not prove that omission of press-fitting from the written description of the patent constituted concealment of the best mode.  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed district court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to CMM for failure to satisfy the best mode requirement. 

Practice Note:  Since the new AIA prevents a post grant action that would challenge a patent as invalid or unenforceable based upon failure to disclose the best mode, this decision would have little or no impact on future patent cases.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

McDermott Will & Emery is a premier international law firm with a diversified business practice. Numbering more than 1,100 lawyers, we have offices in Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Houston,...

+1 312 372 2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.