October 28, 2021

Volume XI, Number 301

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 28, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 27, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 26, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 25, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Federal Circuit: Inequitable Conduct is Not Warranted Without Evidence of Materiality of Withheld Document to the Patent Office

Summary judgment of inherent anticipation is inappropriate where a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art references. Inequitable conduct requires a showing of materiality and is not warranted where there is no evidence that the patents-in-suit would not have issued had the plaintiff disclosed the withheld documents to the Patent Office.

Procedural Posture

The W.D. Wis. granted defendant Novenzymes’s summary judgment motion of inherent anticipation, and denied Novenzymes’s summary judgment motion of inequitable conduct. Both parties appealed. The CAFC vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded.

Analysis

  • Inherent anticipation: The CAFC disagreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment on inherent anticipation because there was a genuine dispute of material fact. The issue was whether the reduction of “insoluble deposits of phytic acid or salts of phytic acids” as recited in the asserted claims was inherent in either prior art references through the use of phytase. Plaintiff U.S. Water adduced evidence, including expert testimony, that practicing the prior art will not always result in deposit reduction. By disregarding this evidence, the district court improperly made credibility determinations and weighed conflicting evidence. Because there was a dispute as to whether “adding phytase in the manner disclosed [in the prior art] will necessarily lead to a reduction of insoluble organometallic salt deposits as claimed in the Patents-in-Suit,” summary judgment was inappropriate.

  • Inequitable conduct: The CAFC affirmed the district court’s grant of no inequitable conduct because Novenzymes failed to show a genuine dispute over either materiality or intent. During prosecution, U.S. Waters was involved in a litigation on another patent. Even though U.S. Waters withheld these litigation documents from the USPTO, “the record contain[ed] no suggestion that, but-for the disclosures made during the [litigation,] the examiner would not have issued the Patents-in-Suit.” Rather, the record showed that the examiner was aware of the differences between the pending claims of the patents-in-suit and the patent in the other litigation. Because there was no error in the district court’s finding of no materiality, the CAFC did not address intent.

Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 16
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Michael J. Block, Andrews Kurth, patent litigation lawyer, dispute resolution attorney
Associate

Michael is an Associate in the Intellectual Property section of the firm’s New York – Battery Park office. He focuses his practice on patent litigation and dispute resolution, especially in the field of electrical engineering.

Michael previously worked in-house at a company where he was engaged in the innovation, development, and monetization of intellectual property and mobile technologies. Michael also has experience in prosecuting patent applications and has written claims, responded to office actions, and participated in interviews with...

212-908-6407
 Vaibhav M. Sharma, Andrews Kurth, Trade Secret Enforcement Lawyer, Patent Litigation Attorney
Associate

Vaibhav is an Associate in the Intellectual Property section of the firm’s New York – Battery Park office. Intellectual property issues are critical to the success of any business, regardless of its size. Andrews Kurth Kenyon helps clients in virtually all industries obtain, protect and enforce patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights. Our IP lawyers have strong technical backgrounds and extensive legal and commercial experience as in-house IP counsel, patent and trademark examiners, engineers and scientists.

212-908-6250
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement